>I really have no idea what your point is and the kind of hostile "replace you" language is about.

It's not intentionally hostile. "Replace All of us and many people outside of coding" is a better term. Apologies.

>People used to shine shoes for a living you know, then a machine came along to do it, now almost no one shines shoes anyway? You would've been a farmer, no you sit around in your underpants arguing on hackernews on the weekend.

By replace I mean replace your job. You'll still be around.

>Use your imagination a little bit and stop focusing on the "replace you " bit? There might be things after AI, if we don't destroy our civilization with it.

Why not? That's literally the only thing that's predictable and pretty much inevitable. Destroying civilization is really grand speculation. Again by "replace" I mean replace your job. Not replace your life.

>The difference in our argument here is this. From a technical perspective, I think you're wrong and naive to think a language model will replace people in most roles. I'm talking about the pragmatic side of the argument, you're speculating Google has a AlphaCoder waiting in the midst to eat our jobs, while that might be true, it's a different thing to what ChatGPT is.

What I'm saying is that this AlphaCoder is built off of the same basic technology as chatGPT, just targeted to replace a specific Job role. chatGPT is trained more generally. But the Generator model... the underlying technology is the same. It's just the training data and reinforcement is different.

>I'll give you an example, I could use something to generate art for the company I'm building an not hire artists, but do you know why I don't? Because there's a whole strategy around art, design and user experience to building a brand. Maybe my staff will use AI to generate design for consideration which will save us sometime and let us focus on other things, but ultimately I'm not going to use a "hallucinated gif" instead of hiring someone who has studied and "understands" design.

Oh man you chose the wrong example for me. I'm highly critical of designers. I think it's the most generic simple sector of the art world that any one can actually pull off with little training. Minimal designs that are clean take time and effort to make... THIS I agre...e but talent? No I disagree. It takes no talent to think hard about design fundamentals. Literally it's all flat geometric shapes on a page and text placement and font selection.

I am FAR more impressed with an artist that can draw something that's more photorealistic rather then arranging text and shapes on a page. If you hire a "designer" for a company you're building and you pay him top dollar. I'm sorry you're getting ripped off. This is one of the greatest delusions of modern times that Design is hard when in actuality it's trivially easy.

I think you do need an art department. But that art department will be full of people with a very basic and generic skillset and it's a job that deserves really low pay imo. Don't believe me? Look at googles logo. Some designer got paid top dollar for just a multicolored G... you have to be next level insane not to see how little talent was involved in that. I mean the G is clean and symmetrical and iconic... but it's also TRIVIAL to create.

All of this is besides the point. The point is, especially for Design, you can hire a guy with no training to use an AI specifically made to generate things with a specific "design" theme for your company and it will generate designs that are ON par with what a designer can do.