No, they don't. But to the layman they do. Most people are unaware that you can get what is to them an impressive 3d game scaffold from the Unity asset store in like one hour. You can literally have a 3d man running around an open world with camera, lighting, shadows, run animations, in like 5 minutes. This is a very impressive feat if you have no idea about modern game engines, which 99.99999% of people do not.

As an amateur game dev who knows some amount of things, honestly, not coping, I have not seen anything come out of AI game dev that would have been more than like one month of human dev work. And obviously, games take a lot more than one month to make...

It is because English is an ambiguous input unlike a high level programming language. The output cannot help but be wrong sometimes when the input is ambiguous. See my comment here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49491797

Determinism isn't the issue; it's that the prompt does not contain enough information to know the correct way to do the thing, even if it did the thing the same way with the same inputs every time.

I don't like this inevitability framing. It's not true of other actually dangerous things. "There is no sane world where we can stop drugs/nukes/guns/CP, even if every single chemist/physicist/metallurgist/pedo were to vanish tomorrow, it would only be a stopgap [thus we should just let everyone have those things]." Yes, those things will exist in some highly restricted or illegal contexts, but that doesn't mean any of them need to be in the workplace or accessible to every citizen. Usage and access and development could be heavily restricted in just the same way. You don't think AI is dangerous enough for this comparison to be sensible, but I'm not so sure.

Likewise, arguments that other countries will have it therefore we must have it, are specious. Some countries have nukes, we don't let every country have them, we certainly don't let citizens have them; some countries produce CP, we don't let citizens access it; some countries have millions of guns among citizens, we don't let the guns cross the border. All this is to say that it would not be infeasible to broadly ban AI in most contexts. Obviously this won't happen in the current political climate, but it's not a law of the universe that AI pervading daily life is inevitable.

For some of us, "enjoy life" necessitates having some care and craftsmanship in the work we're doing 40 hours per week. People liked this job. Now it's becoming just a job.

Imagine a Michelin chef who previously invented delicious menus but whose boss has declared he now can only serve microwaved Sysco food. The revenue for some reason hasn't decreased. Why should he care about his "skills" if he's still able to make money, pursue hobbies, and enjoy life? I think that should be obvious here.

What happens when the biggest feature that can be touted is concrete objective metrics about bugs/uptime/quality-stuff? Can't slop your way to having the "crafted with love and care, no bugs in production in the last 2 years" feature.

More to the point, we currently share a society with many people of a violent culture, which makes directly shaming them dangerous and unwise. This was not always the case. The death of shaming is largely related to the increased daily proximity to violent subcultures who do not fear consequences.

Those subcultures have their own notions of shame and honor, and have lines they are careful about crossing and willingness to turn to violence if their honor is overly injured.

Disapproving glances on the subway when their music is too loud does not rise to that level, however.

All he's saying is when Swift gets on stage and her drummer needs to pee, he's going to have to hold it instead of walking off stage in the middle of the song. Sometimes jobs require periods of required availability.