No I get that. Greater technology will always reduce the amount of people that can be employed in that industry. Every field works that way. That’s not a direct similarity between those two industries in particular. Which is what I was referring to. Those two fields in particular don’t have all that much in common. So using one to predict the full outcome of the other is silly.

If one person suddenly becomes capable of doing the same amount of work as 10 people, then it becomes only logical to only pay the one person to do the 10 jobs. Instead of paying 10 people to do one job. (Which would be way more expensive.) If one person’s capabilities increase, it does reduce the need (aka demand) for other employees. That’s just basic economics.

But as one entity becomes capable of more, that actually reduces the demand for other entities.

And the idea that demand for coding is infinite is just an unrealistic assumption.

But as one person’s capabilities increase, that actually reduces the need for other people in the same way an AI would. So either way, this idea that we’re all just gonna make a living as coders is unrealistic.

Your logic doesn’t even make sense tbh. If it drastically reduces the number of them, it’s essentially replacing the majority of them… So saying “well.. like 10% of you may still have jobs in this field” isn’t the slam dunk argument against AI job replacement that you seem to think it is.

Also comparing software development to farming is a bit of a stretch. The two industries are nothing alike and there’s nothing that indicates that what happens to one will happen to the other as well.

Reminds me of the average Redditer on tech subs tbh.

The competition will be using AI as well..

Yeah, I just thought you might have been being sarcastic haha.

I agree that burden of knowledge probably isn’t that big of a factor tho. I just chalk it up to there being less “unknowns” or incorrect ideas that need to be disrupted then there were in the past. It’s similar to how the rate of new “land discovery” has slowed down since the days of Christopher Columbus as well right? It’s simply because we’ve discovered most of the land on Earth and now it’s hard to come by new undiscovered areas. Exact same thing is happening with science most likely.

Lmao… Hopefully you meant that as compliment bro. Either way that’s how I’m gonna take this. 😂

Tbh, I always thought the whole “disruptive science has slowed down” thing was misunderstood by most. In order for a discovery to be disruptive to a field of science, it has to turn the current understanding of the field on its head. (Which implies that previous theories and ideas were incorrect all along). Once a field matures over time, it’s only natural that there will be less “disruptive” discoveries as our understanding of those fields become more and more concrete.

In other words, it’s not something that needs to be “overcome”. It’s a good sign that our current science is becoming more and more bulletproof and undeniable. (Unlike in the past, where we’d have a theory that was totally wrong, and then some new discovery would “disrupt” the industry.) It just means we’re actually starting to understand the world around us for real now.

Are you under the impression that neither of these things will ever happen? Or do you just think that they’re a long time away? You’d be wrong on both counts…

Ahh… So you’re a “would-be” artist yourself? that explains a lot. Have you not considered that you may be biased on this particular topic buddy? Seems like you have a vested interest in the idea that human art will somehow be spared from automation. (For pretty obvious reasons).

Ask yourself this, what’s gonna happen when AI creates a world where there’s no need for beatmakers because AI will generate a perfect beat in seconds based on a few descriptive sentences? What happens when everyone can use these AI to make their own beats? (So there’s no need for them to ever buy anyone else’s beats?)

What happens when we have AI that can totally bypass the process of “making beats” and can instead, simply generate fully completed songs with human vocals included? What happens to music industry when this type of tech is available to everyone?

Because… at the moment , making “the best” music still requires some degree of skill and talent. What do you think will happen once we have AI that can generate music better than today’s best artists with a few descriptive text prompts? What happens to the market for music when anyone can generate an entire album full of songs personally tailored to their specific tastes for free with AI? Do you still think people will bother listening to (or financially supporting) music created by other people?

It’s completely stupid to compare the state of any industry today to what will be possible with these AI’s in the future. There’s never been a point in human history where we were able to create the type of technology that we’re working towards now. There’s no historical precedent for a world with AI so comparing the future to the past is useless here. At the end of the day you’ll always be comparing two different worlds. History doesn’t always repeat itself my friend. Past doesn’t necessarily dictate future.

Because… I simply disagree with you? Seems like someone just has some intellectual insecurities. 😂 But whatever, I’ll take that as a compliment. The fact that you think I’m trying to “look smart” when I’m simply giving my views on the matter is hilarious tbh. It’d be like telling a beautiful person simply having a conversation in a restaurant to “stop trying to look beautiful 😡”.

No one’s trying to look like anything buddy. Do you really think I wanna impress some random dumbass on Reddit that has yet to even provide any real argument against what I said? Lmao get over yourself. I simply gave my opinion, you proceeded to post a dumb rebuttal, and then I responded to that. That’s it. The fact that you’re now trying to resort to childish insults proves you just don’t have anything meaningful to add to the conversation. So stop wasting your own time and just move along pal. 👍

I have no proof that the more saturated an item or skill is on the market, the lower the price it yields? I have no proof that the larger the supply of an item or skill, the lower the demand? Am I misunderstanding your question or are just new to planet Earth? Please be more specific…

I can agree that a post-scarcity world takes the sting out of losing your career, but my concern lies more with what the value of creating art will be in a world where AI allows everyone to be just as capable as you are.

There may not actually be much fulfillment in creating art in a world where artistic skill itself is no longer scarce. You know what I mean? Sure some may still attempt to make art when bored or whatever. But what’s the point when some less talented idiot can just open up an AI and create something just as good or even better with a fraction of the time and effort it took you? How fulfilling will making art be when “making art” simply consisted of typing a short description into a text prompt and then boom… beautiful artwork?

I’m just not sure the value of making art will survive this transition into post-scarcity. I guess that’s what’s being debated here.

Nice argument you got there pal… totally didn’t prove me right with that comment… nope.

Well, I definitely agree that artists just don’t like AI art period and never will (for good reason). But with the copyright thing, I don’t think it’s a “this or that” situation. I genuinely believe that it also does piss them off that the AI technology is not only a threat to their industry, but basically using their own art to eventually render them obsolete. Who wouldn’t be slightly pissed in that scenario?

But like I said, I do agree that the real animosity they have stems from the fact that they can see the writing on the wall. If people can just use AI to design their own art. There’s no need to ever hire “artists” as we know them. Thus the market for “artists” will disappear shortly after. Their animosity will most likely be justified in the end. But the genie’s out the bottle now so… it is what it is.

First off, no where in my comment did I advocate for suppressing it smart guy… I was simply telling you what the outcome will most likely be from these innovations.

Second, stop trying to compare AI to printers, etc. AI is completely different from all those other tools. It’s a dumb false dichotomy that doesn’t even make sense. And history doesn’t always repeat, so appealing to the past is ridiculous anyways.

Lastly, do you not understand that the value of art is tied to its rarity? Do you think “The Starry Night” would have been so beloved if literal everyone could create something just as beautiful with a few text prompts? If everyone has the capability to be a great artist, no one has any reason to consume or pay for anyone else’s art. Thus art will cease to have any real monetary or cultural value. (And that’s not even touching on the damaging effects that market saturation will have on these industries as well.)

Deep down even you know I’m correct because you can’t even actually argue with what I’m telling you. All you can do is try to appeal to past creations that are in no way comparable to what AI is capable of. Says a lot huh..

The problem with people who have these type of utopian fantasies is that you clearly don’t understand the concept of saturation and how this type of bar-lowering will simply tank the value of art and end up rendering the majority of it worthless in the future. It won’t lead to some unrealistic renaissance where everyone is lauded for their artificial, ai-granted, “artistic“ abilities. Instead, art will be so easy and cheap to produce for even the most talentless morons that creating art won’t be impressive or meaningful to anyone in the future.

That probably won’t happen until we perfect something like Neurolink. (Or some other technology that seamlessly connects our brains to a computer.) One of the few things mentioned on this type of sub that actually is still a long time away.

Ehh… that’s a little ableist don’t you think 😂

But on a serious note, I disagree. There’s a reason many people like playing games on the harder difficulties. (And sometimes they want even harder difficulties than those). It’s because when things are too easy, they become boring. They’re nothing fulfilling or gratifying about a life of total hedonism. And while certainly nobody wants a life that’s too difficult. It remains to be seen whether or not humans will truly enjoy a life with absolutely no responsibility or stakes like many here assume we will. I think that’s what OP and I were really getting at. Just my two cents

Then why not just retire and play basketball all day at one of his luxurious houses? It’d be even better for him it it was really just about loving the game right?

Why don’t we see the ones who are rich and famous right now doing it? How often do you really see a person get rich in their youth and then immediately retire? Be realistic.

I meant like athletes for example. How come Steph Curry doesn’t retire after his first 200 million dollar deal is completed for instance?