But those people don't need to be programmers.
The reality is, that most software is complex, but trivial. It's s bunch of requirements, but there's no magic behind it. An AI that can turn a written text containing the requirements into a decently running program will replace tons of developers.
And since a future AI, that's actually trained to do software, won't have problem juggling 300 requirements at once (like humans have), it's relatively easy to trust the result.
it’s relatively easy to trust the result.
… just as easy as taking the responsibility for it if it fails?
Do human programmers not fail?
I don’t want to hype AI, but you’re basically comparing a high school graduate AI (lots of general knowledge, no specialization) with a perfect senior dev. But that’s not really fair.
As soon as an AI works better than the average developer in a given area, it will outperform them. Simple as that.
Of course it will make errors, but the question is, are the extra errors compared to a human worth the savings?
Just a quick example: let’s say you’d need 10 devs of 100k a year and they produce errors worth 200k a year. That means costs of 1.2million a years.
If an AI costs 100k in licenses, replaces 5 devs and only adds, say 200k in errors, you’re still at only 1 million a year.
AggressivelyPassive