I was afraid including that bit about learning to code would distract from my (poor) attempt at pointing out that AI will probably soon be better at some of the jobs in tech/writing/art than people are. I think the issue is using the term AI to begin with. It's too broad and people always jump to human level capability (and more importantly awareness). The technologies in this discussed in OP's link are not Inteligent; others in the thread are more correct in calling it machine learning. That having been said, we all assume the internet is filled with bots, so the idea of bots that can be more convincingly human and produce marketing work or a news article of sufficient quality to replace human workers hardly seems farfetched at this point.
You don't have to replace everyone for the technology to apocalyptically upend and industry. Probably for the best.
I was afraid including that bit about learning to code would distract from my (poor) attempt at pointing out that AI will probably soon be better at some of the jobs in tech/writing/art than people are. I think the issue is using the term AI to begin with. It's too broad and people always jump to human level capability (and more importantly awareness). The technologies in this discussed in OP's link are not Inteligent; others in the thread are more correct in calling it machine learning. That having been said, we all assume the internet is filled with bots, so the idea of bots that can be more convincingly human and produce marketing work or a news article of sufficient quality to replace human workers hardly seems farfetched at this point.
You don't have to replace everyone for the technology to apocalyptically upend and industry. Probably for the best.