|
I think the concern that Ryan and I have is less about stealing jobs directly than the fact that people *think* they can replace skilled professionals with it, but you still need a human who can understand the desired output to verify that the output isn't just low quality nonsense that "looks right" or you end up with disaster.
As someone who got an engineering degree in the '90s a lot of modern tools already automate away mundane tasks - I saw a quote that said "when AI becomes useful we stop calling it AI and just call it automation or machine learning". I have no problem with an engineer who uses a "machine learning" tool that figures out how to automatically place features on a design, we all do it. I do have a problem with a manager who then thinks, what's the engineer for, I can just ask the tool to make the design and it looks like something the engineer would've made, must be good! Then the bridge falls down.
Don't get me wrong here, either, humans make countless mistakes. That's why we have multiple sets of eyes on things. And it's even useful to have ML tools to check human output - if I write some low level code, even with code reviews and unit testing, some ML analysis tool might find a security vulnerability that manual testing didn't. And that's useful.
|