AI ambivalence
š a linked post to
nolanlawson.com »
—
originally shared here on
Maybe, like a lot of other middle-aged professionals suddenly finding their careers upended at the peak of their creative power, I will have to adapt or face replacement. Or maybe my best bet is to continue to zig while others are zagging, and to try to keep my coding skills sharp while everyone else is āvibe codingā a monstrosity that I will have to debug when it crashes in production someday.
I enjoyed this piece because I think it represents the feelings I hear from artists. You might not consider computer programming an art form, but if art is humans expressing themselves, then writing code absolutely qualifies.
And like a lot of other artists, many of us "computer peopleā make money by doing our art for other people. It turns out that for the last fourty years, we could do our art for other people and we'd get paid quite well to do so.
But now that anyone can basically vibe code solutions to basic problems1, a increasing set of non-nerds is able to use computers themselves. That naturally will drive down our value.
I use "value" here in a cold, hard, capitalistic sense. Maybe it's our turn, as artists who care about making efficient, beautiful, artistic computer programs, to worry about how we'll derive value in a world where anyone can vibe code their ideas to life.
-
What's wild is just how fast the bar for what counts as "basic" is raising. ↩