←back to thread

AI’s coding evolution hinges on collaboration and trust

(spectrum.ieee.org)
183 points WolfOliver | 4 comments | 29 Aug 25 15:24 UTC | HN request time: 0.702s | source
Show context
manoDev ◴[29 Aug 25 16:38 UTC] No.45066299[source]▶
I'm tired of the anthropomorphization marketing behind AI driving this kind of discussion. In a few years, all this talk will sound as dumb as stating "MS Word spell checker will replace writers" or "Photoshop will replace designers".

We'll reap the productivity benefits from this new tool, create more work for ourselves, output will stabilize at a new level and salaries will stagnate again, as it always happens.

replies(9): >>45066425 #>>45066524 #>>45067057 #>>45067320 #>>45067348 #>>45067450 #>>45068047 #>>45068717 #>>45068934 #
kazinator ◴[29 Aug 25 16:47 UTC] No.45066425[source]▶
Generative AI is replacing writers, designers, actors, ... it is nothing like just a spell checker or Phtoshop.

Everyday, I see ads on YouTube with smooth-talking, real-looking AI-generated actors. Each one represents one less person that would have been paid.

There is no exact measure of correctness in design; one bad bit does not stop the show. The clients don't even want real art. Artists sometimes refer to commercial work as "selling out", referring to hanging their artistic integrity on the hook to make a living. Now "selling out" competes with AI which has no artistic integrity to hang on the hook, works 24 hours a day for peanuts and is astonishingly prolific.

replies(9): >>45066641 #>>45066767 #>>45066873 #>>45066891 #>>45067034 #>>45067062 #>>45068106 #>>45068172 #>>45071280 #
1. frank_nitti ◴[29 Aug 25 17:13 UTC] No.45066767[source]▶
I agree with your sentiment. But where I struggle is: to what degree do each of those ads “represent one less person who would have been paid” versus those that represent one additional person who would not be able to afford to advertise in that medium.

Of course that line of reasoning reduces similar to other automation / minimum wage / etc discussions

replies(2): >>45067124 #>>45070717 #
2. boesboes ◴[29 Aug 25 17:39 UTC] No.45067124[source]▶
It reminds me of the piracy lawsuits that claimed damages as if every download would have been a sale
replies(1): >>45069048 #
3. kazinator ◴[29 Aug 25 20:31 UTC] No.45069048[source]▶
The extreme opposite idea that no unlicensed use of software is a lost sale is likewise a fantasy.
4. Adverblessly ◴[29 Aug 25 23:56 UTC] No.45070717[source]▶
Obviously there's some mix of the two, but given then I've seen AI used (poorly) for both TV commercials (in expensive time slots) and billboards (I think expensive as well, but I don't really know) where you know they can afford to pay "real people" to do it, there's definitely a noticeable amount of real replacement.