Chat GPT and Hereafter
AI search tools such as ChatGPT do give information when asked for, but requires further relevant and provoking questions to give comprehensive information about the subject. However, asking such questions is a skill that most people lack; and those who don't lack it, fail to use this skill consistently. Content creators can exploit this by not merely answering a question, but giving comprehensive information about the subject that isn't part of the answer.
Teach the user something about the subject that he would not even have thought of in order to frame a question. The content must give an 'aha' moment to the user. It's not merely quality information that will survive the threat of tools like ChatGPT, but information that is unexpected yet relevant that can survive.
But this edge will not last. AIs have an incredible speed of learning and massive capacity to crunch data. It is only a matter of time before which AI tools like ChatGPT understands the context and gives comprehensive information.
AI tools that generate programming code must not be surprising at all since programming languages are stricter and more formal languages with unambiguous phrases than languages humans use; thus making them an easy language for AI tools to master. Indeed, there are bugs in the code generated by them, but over time with its massive learning capabilities, AI tools will fix this; especially in the case of programming languages.
Many personalities in the industry are sceptical of the idea that AI tools will kill programming jobs. They are sceptical for three reasons:
- past experiences with older generative tools that were incompetent,
- humans' resilience to disruptions, and
- the idea that programming will evolve to writing specification and thus still have a job .
The comparison of current AI tools with an older generative technology is at best irresponsible because of the difference in the underlying technology and computation power we have today. Today's tools are clearly superior to the older ones.
Those that bank on human resilience must realise that current AI tools are based on neural networks, which are mimics of our own brain's network with a higher processing power and without any emotional influence in decision making. AI tools are our best traits put on steroids. If we are flexible, they can be more flexible: if not now, soon.
Those that count on the idea that the job of programming will evolve to writing mere but accurate specifications of what software is required, thus not literally wiping off engineering or programming jobs, must reconsider their position for these factors:
- more business executives are getting digitally capable (years back, executives required training to use even the basic features of office suites whereas today trainings are required only for more sophisticated applications and actions).
- the upcoming generations are technically more capable than the current ones (a kid can operate most digital devices better than most of the current adult population did when they were kids).
- business executives are anyway giving the specifications for the software they need.
Given these cases, business executives in future can input the software specifications themselves into a AI program generator and get a full working software in less time and less cost. This kills a major chuck of software development and engineering sector.
The irony and stupidity of the development of AI program generators is that engineers are making a tool that will make them obsolete and render them jobless at some point in future; unless the use of AI is regulated by the system. Even so, a non-conformist can exploit the capabilities of the AI to cause damage.
But I understand the drive that keeps engineers working on such tools despite their threats — it is the thrill and satisfaction of creating great things. Whoever you are — whether a carpenter or programmer — the outcome of your endeavours will overpower the consequences of the outcome fundamentally because the true realisation of the consequences comes after the thrills of the endeavours.
The threat of AI wiping human jobs is a political problem than an engineering problem. Much like the idea of human cloning has been regulated or prohibited, the political system must interfere. They exist to serve humanity; not the AI.