Amazon cloud boss echoes NVIDIA CEO on coding being dead in the water: "If you go forward 24 months from now, it's possible that most developers are not coding"
Amazon cloud boss echoes NVIDIA CEO on coding being dead in the water: "If you go forward 24 months from now, it's possible that most developers are not coding"
Software developers might need to upskill in coding with the rapid advancement of AI to remain relevant in the job market.
You're viewing a single thread.
If generative AI hasn't replaced artists, it won't replaced programmers.
Generative AI is much better at art than coding.
It will never replace artists anyway.
Art isn't just about what it looks, like it's also about an emotional connection. Inherently we think that you cannot have an emotional connection with something created by a computer. Humans will always prefer art created by humans, even if objectively there isn't a lot of difference.
Also, it seems to only do digital art.
The problem is that not everyone looks for that human-to-human emotional connection in art. For some, it's just a part of a much bigger whole.
For example, if you're an indie game dev with a small budget and no artistic skills, you may not be that scrupulous about getting an AI to generate some sprites or 3D models for you, if the alternative is to commission the art assets with money you don't have.
Similar idea applies to companies building a website. Why pay for a licence to download some stock images or design assets if you can just get a GenAI to pump out hundreds for you that are very convincing (and probably even better) for a couple bucks?
Sure, but those jobs are often pretty low-paid, like on fiverr or something. But for anything with a broader impact, like AAA games, large corporations, or public art, you'll commission a professional artist. AI works fine for low-budget projects and as a stand-in for works in progress, but it's not replacing human artists anytime soon, though it may assist artists (e.g. in producing mockups and whatnot quickly).
Generative AI is much better at art than coding.
Mostly because humans invented this convenient thing called abstract art - and since then tolerates pretty much everything that looks "strange" as art. Must have been a deep learning advocate with a time machine who came up with abstract art.
Don't need to be abstract art, it manages to make many kinds of art.
The difference between art and coding is that if you pick a slightly different color or make a line with slightly the wrong angle, it doesn't change much. In code, however, slight mistakes usually result in bugs.
I meant that thanks to abstract art we're willing to forgive "image glitches" in art by deep learning models.
I don't think that's the case though. Obvious glitches like 6-fingered hands can be avoided by generating a bunch of samples and picking the best one, and less obvious glitches tend to be overlooked, not considered a "feature" due to an appreciation of abstract art.
AI art works best for pieces that need to fade into the background, like stock images and whatnot to accompany more important copy. If it's taking center stage, it needs a lot more hand-holding that probably makes it about as costly as just having a human create it.