Comment by heddycrow

That's a fair response. I think I was trying to make a point which may be a bit more subtle than my questions suggest when taken at face value.

I'll attempt to explain.

From reading the article, I presume that at some point, all the people who think of code as clay will migrate out of this profession and set up shop in some mall somewhere helping married people renew their ties by making code artifacts by hand. As the article suggests, code (for them) will go the way that clay has went.

Also per the article, AI will be making some other portion of the low-hanging fruit code which business people can't justify hiring humans for.

And then perhaps there will be me and other people like me getting paid to work on things which require an understanding that code is quite unlike any medium humanity has seen before.

For the later group, code is not for everyone, it's beyond what AI can produce by itself, it's not a fetish, it's not cool, it's not fun, and it's one of the only ways to do the things we can do with it.

I sometimes think I'm addressing that later group of people when I type into this box, but maybe that's a bit naive of me.

It could have been safer for me to state that I find it unwise to make these analogies without being careful about the dangers in doing so.