14 ms·

A friend of mine was studying graphic design, but became disillusioned and decided to switch to frontend programming after he graduated. His thesis advisor said

by fbanon 5y ago

A friend of mine was studying graphic design, but became disillusioned and decided to switch to frontend programming after he graduated. His thesis advisor said he should be cautious, because automation/AI will soon take the jobs of programmers, implying that graphic design is a safer bet in this regard. Looks like his advisor is a few years from being proven horribly wrong.

esjeon 5y ago
What people ALWAYS miss is that AI can augment people. This AI is still a tool, and, with it, designers and illustrator can churn out better images faster than before, even without using stock images. It's important to note that we still need professionals to guarantee the quality of the output from AIs, including this one. As noted in their issue tracker, DALL-E has very specific limitations, but these can be easily solved by employing dedicated professionals, who are trained to tame the AI and properly finish the raw output. So, if I were running OpenAI, I'll clearly be experimenting with how their AIs and human interact, and build a training program around it for producing practical outputs. (Actually, I work in consumer robotics, and human adoption has been the biggest hurdle here. Thus, my claim here.) -- In case of fine art, thou, I don't think they'll not get hit by this AI advancement. The biggest problem is that you simply can't get the exact image you want wit this AI. Even humans cannot transfer visual information in verbal form without a significant loss of details, thus a loss of quality. It's the same with AI, but, worse, because AI rely on the bias in a specific set of training data, and it never truly understands the human context in it (in the current level of technology).
pingeroo 5y ago
I mean was he really wrong? As models like OpenAI Codex get more powerful over time, they will start eating into large chunks of dev work as well...
- chrisco255 5y ago
  Yes. Translating business requirements, customer context, engineering constraints, etc. into usable, practical, functional code, and then maintaining that code and extending it is so far beyond the horizon, that many other skillsets will replaced before programming is. After all, at that point, the AI itself, if it's so smart, should be able to improve itself indefinitely. In which case we're fucked. Programming will be the last thing to be automated before the singularity. Unlike artwork, precision and correctness is absolutely critical in coding.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - carnitine 5y ago
    The tail end of programming will be the last thing to be replaced, maybe. I don’t see why CRUD apps get to hide under the umbrella of programming ultra-advanced AI.
    - chrisco255 5y ago
      Let me know when you can speak English to a computer and have it generate CRUD code that satisfies all engineering and design constraints. The AI will need to be dynamic enough to understand nuance, missing gaps in the requirements spec, have context on the application being built, able to suggest improvements on product design, know how to make changes through the same conversational interface, etc. Accomplishing that is achieving general AI. In the meantime, there are plenty of boilerplate ORMs and simplistic API template tools that make production of bog standard CRUD apps dead simple. Of course, they all have their drawbacks and trade-offs, and aren't always suitable. But I don't see the amount of software engineering work reducing as a result of these no-code, low-code tools, do you?
      - atleta 5y ago
        Probably not. People tend to think that tasks that make us think hard require general intelligence just because that's the tool we use to solve that problem. The AI doesn't have to be very good to be able to replace CRUD web app developers (that is, most of us). As I see, the real challenge to solve is for it to be able to hold context and be able to communicate iteratively. Also, as you say find missing gaps. That's important. Other than that, you tell it what you want, it creates something and then you tell it to change things around. Which is, BTW, pretty similar to how it works with biological life based developers. Though as we're lazy, we like to clarify a lot of things up front (and either drive customers crazy or teach them that this is the way it works). If you have an AI that spits out code in a few minutes, it may not matter a lot. Most of the programming jobs are indeed about making relatively simple stuff from standard components.
- pizza 5y ago
  No worry, the one thing humans can do that robots can't (yet) is fill spare time with ever more work https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson's_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson's_law
- nlh 5y ago
  Large chunks, yes, but all that means is that engineers will move up the abstraction stack and become more efficient, not that engineers will be replaced. Bytecode -> Assembly -> C -> higher level languages -> AI-assisted higher-level languages
  - bckr 5y ago
    > engineers will move up the abstraction stack and become more efficient Above a certain threshold of ability, yes. The same will hold true for designers. DALL-E-alikes will be integrated with the Adobe suite. The most cutting edge designers will speak 50 variations of their ideas into images, then use their hard-earned granular skills to fine-tune the results. They'll (with no code) train models in completely new, unique-to-them styles--in 2D, 3D, and motion. Organizations will pay top dollar for designers who can rapidly infuse their brands with eye-catching material in unprecedented volume. Imitators will create and follow YouTube tutorials. Mom & pop shops will have higher fidelity marketing materials in half the time and half the cost. All will be ever as it was.
  - Isinlor 5y ago
    At some point we will be "replaced". When you get AI to be able to navigate all user interfaces, communicate with other agents, plan long term and execute short term, we will no longer be the main drivers of economical growth. At some point AI will become as powerful as companies. And then AI will be able to sustain positive feedback loop of creating more powerful company like ecosystems that will create even more powerful ecosystems. This process will be fundamentally limited by available power and the sun can provide a lot of power. Eventually AI will be able to support space economy and then the only limit will be the universe.
    - visarga 5y ago
      > At some point we will be "replaced". We will be united with the AI, we're already relying on it so much that it has become a part of our extended minds.
      - 5y ago
- 0F 5y ago
  Literally everyone on this website is in denial. They all approach it by asking which fields will be safe. No field is safe. “But it’s not going to happen for a long time.” Climate deniers say the same thing and you think they should be wearing the dunce hat? The average person complains bitterly about climate deniers who say that it’s “my grandkids problem lol” but when I corner the average person into admitting AI is a problem the universal response is that it’s a long way off. And that’s not even true! The drooling idiots are willing to tear down billionaires and governments and any institution whatsoever in order to protect economic equality and a high standard of living — they would destroy entire industries like a rampaging stampede of belligerent buffalos if it meant reducing carbon emissions a little but when it comes to the biggest threat to human well-being in history, there they are in the corner hitting themselves on their helmeted head with an inflatable hammer. Fucking. Brilliant.
  - pingeroo 5y ago
    I agree that many of us are not seeing the writing on the wall. It does give me some hope that folks like Andrew Yang are starting to pop up, spreading awareness about, and proposing solutions to the challenges we are soon to face.
  - visarga 5y ago
    > but when it comes to the biggest threat to human well-being in history Evolution doesn't stop for anyone, don't think like a dinosaur.
  - plutonorm 5y ago
    Ignorance is bliss in this case, because this is even more unstoppable than climate change. You thought climate change is hard to hold up? Try holding up the invention of AI. The whole world is going to have to change and some form of socialism/UBI will have to be accepted, however unpalatable.
  - dntrkv 5y ago
    I don't think anyone is in denial about this, it's just not something anyone should concern themselves with in the foreseeable future. AI that can replace a dev or designer is nowhere close to becoming a reality. Just because we have some cool demos that show some impressive capabilities in a narrow application does not mean we can extrapolate that capability to something that is many times more complex.
- throwaway675309 5y ago
  I mean not really, even a layman non-artist can take a look at a generated picture from DALLE and determine if it meets some set of criteria from their clients. But the reverse is not true, they won't be able to properly vet a piece of code generated by an AI since that will require technical expertise. (You could argue if the piece of code produced the requisite set of output that they would have some marginal level of confidence but they would never really know for sure without being able to understand the actual code)
educaysean 5y ago
I have degrees and several years of experience in both fields, and I can tell you that both are creative professions where output is unbounded and the measure of success is subjective; these are the fields that will be safe for a while. IMO it's fields such as aircraft pilots who should be most worried.
- nullc 5y ago
  Interesting. Right now these ML models seem like essentially ideal sources of "hotel art" particularly because it's so subjective... you only need a human (the buyer!) to just briefly filter some candidates, which they would have been doing with an artist in the loop in any case. For things like aircraft pilots, it's both realtime-- which means 'reviewer' per output-- you haven't taken a highly trained pilot out of the loop, even if you relegated them to supervising the computer-- and life critical so merely "so/so" isn't good enough.
- zarzavat 5y ago
  The jobs of commercial pilots are very safe. Pilots are not there to fly the aircraft, the autopilot already does that. They are there to command the aircraft, in a pair in case one is incapacitated, making the best decisions for the people on board, and to troubleshoot issues when the worst happens. No AI or remote pilot is going to help when say... the aircraft loses all power. Or the airport has been taken over in a coup attempt and the pilot has to decide whether to escape or stay https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NcztK6VWadQ https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NcztK6VWadQ You can bet on major flights having two commercial pilots right up until the day we all get turned into paperclips.
  - throwaway675309 5y ago
    It's not as safe as you believe it to be, in the case of total electrical power failure in a fly by wire airliner, and the corresponding loss of hydraulic pressure there's very little that a pilot can do with that point. As far as the extremely unlikely hostage situation goes, if it were AI controlled that would be even less likely attempts from people to hijack an airplane in the first place since there wouldn't be a human element a.k.a. a pilot that they could appeal to their emotion.
robbywashere_ 5y ago
Did coachman immediately retire when cars were invented or did they begin personal drivers or taxi drivers?
oldstrangers 5y ago
I think designers are becoming more valuable than ever. Designers can better help train the AI on what actually looks good, designers will (probably) always have a more intuitive understanding of UI/UX, designers can better implement the work the AI actually produces, and designers can coordinate designs across multiple different mediums and platforms. Additionally, the rise of no-code development is just extending the functionality of designers. I didn't take design seriously (as a career choice) growing up because I didn't see a future in it, now it pays my bills and the demand for my services just grows by the day. Similar argument to make with chess AI: it didn't make chess players obsolete, it made them stronger than ever.
- adolph 5y ago
  > I think designers are becoming more valuable than ever. Are all designers becoming more valuable or is a subset of really good ones going to reap the value increase and capture more of the previously available value?
  - astrange 5y ago
    What job you have (theoretically) isn't due to "absolute advantage" but "comparative advantage". In other words, if someone else is a better designer than you, that actually has nothing to do with if they're going to take your job. They may have something better to do. An ML model isn't a worker no matter how good it is at painting, so rather than having a job it has input resources (RTX 3090s, electricity, maintenance engineers) but the concept is still important.
  - oldstrangers 5y ago
    Never made an argument for all designers. Obviously the talent pool for any field is finite, and the best of that talent rises to the top. Good designers are being compensated increasingly well, hence "designers are becoming more valuable than ever." Bad designers are even being given better and better paying jobs as the top talent gets poached up quicker and quicker.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
bufferoverflow 5y ago
If this paper presents this neural net fairly, it pretty much destroys the market of illustrators. Most of the time when an illustration needed, it's described like "an astronaut on a horse in the style xyz".
- stubish 5y ago
  I'd argue that the market has already been destroyed at this point, at least in some areas. Book covers seem to have been stock image overlaid with text for a long time now, and a race to the bottom for both the people producing the stock images and the intern adding typography. By cutting costs and quality, the bar has been lowered to the point the task can be completely automated. Our AI overlords already have an advantage in that they have time to actually read the book, a potentially useful input. Maybe they won't even need the prompt - just generate an image for what is happening in the story for interesting looking paragraphs and let the author or editor pick. Given the cost cutting in publishing generally, editors will be next followed by the publishing houses themselves as the value they add gets lowered while the automation at Amazon gets better.
- astrange 5y ago
  The best reason to hire a person to do something is they'll give you what you need, not what you asked for. An ML model does not do this.
  - Sateeshm 5y ago
    I agree. But i'm sure someone will create an ML model that might give what you need, not just what you asked for. Good enough for commercial purposes, mostly. Personally, I would never buy a painting generated by an ML model, or even a commercial illustration, if i can help it. The artist and their life experience is half the point of art, IMO.
- dbspin 5y ago
  You're describing the market for low end commodified illustration. e.g.: cheapest bidder contracts on Upwork or similar 'gig work' services. In practice in illustration (as in all arts) there are a variety of markets where different levels of talent, originality, reputation and creative engagement with the brief are more relevant. For editorial illustration, it's certainly not a case of 'find me someone who can draw X', and probably hasn't been since printing presses got good enough to print photographs.
csomar 5y ago
For computer work, I think there will be two category: Work with localized complexity (ie: draw an image of a horse with a crayon) and work with unbounded complexity (adding a button to VAT accounting after several meetings and reading on accounting rules). For the first category, Dall-E 2 and Codex are promising but not there yet. It's not clear how long it'll take them to reach the point where you no longer need people. I'm guessing 2-4 years but the last bits can be the hardest. As for the second category, we are not there yet. Self-driving cars/planes, and lots of other automation will be here and mature way before an AI can read and communicate through emails, understand project scope and then execute. Also lots of harmonization will have to take place in the information we exchange: emails, docs, chats, code, etc... That is, unless the browser is able to open a navigator and type an address.

by fbanon 5y ago

esjeon 5y ago

What people ALWAYS miss is that AI can augment people. This AI is still a tool, and, with it, designers and illustrator can churn out better images faster than before, even without using stock images. It's important to note that we still need professionals to guarantee the quality of the output from AIs, including this one. As noted in their issue tracker, DALL-E has very specific limitations, but these can be easily solved by employing dedicated professionals, who are trained to tame the AI and properly finish the raw output. So, if I were running OpenAI, I'll clearly be experimenting with how their AIs and human interact, and build a training program around it for producing practical outputs. (Actually, I work in consumer robotics, and human adoption has been the biggest hurdle here. Thus, my claim here.) -- In case of fine art, thou, I don't think they'll not get hit by this AI advancement. The biggest problem is that you simply can't get the exact image you want wit this AI. Even humans cannot transfer visual information in verbal form without a significant loss of details, thus a loss of quality. It's the same with AI, but, worse, because AI rely on the bias in a specific set of training data, and it never truly understands the human context in it (in the current level of technology).

pingeroo 5y ago

I mean was he really wrong? As models like OpenAI Codex get more powerful over time, they will start eating into large chunks of dev work as well...

chrisco255 5y ago
Yes. Translating business requirements, customer context, engineering constraints, etc. into usable, practical, functional code, and then maintaining that code and extending it is so far beyond the horizon, that many other skillsets will replaced before programming is. After all, at that point, the AI itself, if it's so smart, should be able to improve itself indefinitely. In which case we're fucked. Programming will be the last thing to be automated before the singularity. Unlike artwork, precision and correctness is absolutely critical in coding.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- carnitine 5y ago
  The tail end of programming will be the last thing to be replaced, maybe. I don’t see why CRUD apps get to hide under the umbrella of programming ultra-advanced AI.
  - chrisco255 5y ago
    Let me know when you can speak English to a computer and have it generate CRUD code that satisfies all engineering and design constraints. The AI will need to be dynamic enough to understand nuance, missing gaps in the requirements spec, have context on the application being built, able to suggest improvements on product design, know how to make changes through the same conversational interface, etc. Accomplishing that is achieving general AI. In the meantime, there are plenty of boilerplate ORMs and simplistic API template tools that make production of bog standard CRUD apps dead simple. Of course, they all have their drawbacks and trade-offs, and aren't always suitable. But I don't see the amount of software engineering work reducing as a result of these no-code, low-code tools, do you?
    - atleta 5y ago
      Probably not. People tend to think that tasks that make us think hard require general intelligence just because that's the tool we use to solve that problem. The AI doesn't have to be very good to be able to replace CRUD web app developers (that is, most of us). As I see, the real challenge to solve is for it to be able to hold context and be able to communicate iteratively. Also, as you say find missing gaps. That's important. Other than that, you tell it what you want, it creates something and then you tell it to change things around. Which is, BTW, pretty similar to how it works with biological life based developers. Though as we're lazy, we like to clarify a lot of things up front (and either drive customers crazy or teach them that this is the way it works). If you have an AI that spits out code in a few minutes, it may not matter a lot. Most of the programming jobs are indeed about making relatively simple stuff from standard components.
pizza 5y ago
No worry, the one thing humans can do that robots can't (yet) is fill spare time with ever more work https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson's_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson's_law
nlh 5y ago
Large chunks, yes, but all that means is that engineers will move up the abstraction stack and become more efficient, not that engineers will be replaced. Bytecode -> Assembly -> C -> higher level languages -> AI-assisted higher-level languages
- bckr 5y ago
  > engineers will move up the abstraction stack and become more efficient Above a certain threshold of ability, yes. The same will hold true for designers. DALL-E-alikes will be integrated with the Adobe suite. The most cutting edge designers will speak 50 variations of their ideas into images, then use their hard-earned granular skills to fine-tune the results. They'll (with no code) train models in completely new, unique-to-them styles--in 2D, 3D, and motion. Organizations will pay top dollar for designers who can rapidly infuse their brands with eye-catching material in unprecedented volume. Imitators will create and follow YouTube tutorials. Mom & pop shops will have higher fidelity marketing materials in half the time and half the cost. All will be ever as it was.
- Isinlor 5y ago
  At some point we will be "replaced". When you get AI to be able to navigate all user interfaces, communicate with other agents, plan long term and execute short term, we will no longer be the main drivers of economical growth. At some point AI will become as powerful as companies. And then AI will be able to sustain positive feedback loop of creating more powerful company like ecosystems that will create even more powerful ecosystems. This process will be fundamentally limited by available power and the sun can provide a lot of power. Eventually AI will be able to support space economy and then the only limit will be the universe.
  - visarga 5y ago
    > At some point we will be "replaced". We will be united with the AI, we're already relying on it so much that it has become a part of our extended minds.
    - 5y ago
0F 5y ago
Literally everyone on this website is in denial. They all approach it by asking which fields will be safe. No field is safe. “But it’s not going to happen for a long time.” Climate deniers say the same thing and you think they should be wearing the dunce hat? The average person complains bitterly about climate deniers who say that it’s “my grandkids problem lol” but when I corner the average person into admitting AI is a problem the universal response is that it’s a long way off. And that’s not even true! The drooling idiots are willing to tear down billionaires and governments and any institution whatsoever in order to protect economic equality and a high standard of living — they would destroy entire industries like a rampaging stampede of belligerent buffalos if it meant reducing carbon emissions a little but when it comes to the biggest threat to human well-being in history, there they are in the corner hitting themselves on their helmeted head with an inflatable hammer. Fucking. Brilliant.
- pingeroo 5y ago
  I agree that many of us are not seeing the writing on the wall. It does give me some hope that folks like Andrew Yang are starting to pop up, spreading awareness about, and proposing solutions to the challenges we are soon to face.
- visarga 5y ago
  > but when it comes to the biggest threat to human well-being in history Evolution doesn't stop for anyone, don't think like a dinosaur.
- plutonorm 5y ago
  Ignorance is bliss in this case, because this is even more unstoppable than climate change. You thought climate change is hard to hold up? Try holding up the invention of AI. The whole world is going to have to change and some form of socialism/UBI will have to be accepted, however unpalatable.
- dntrkv 5y ago
  I don't think anyone is in denial about this, it's just not something anyone should concern themselves with in the foreseeable future. AI that can replace a dev or designer is nowhere close to becoming a reality. Just because we have some cool demos that show some impressive capabilities in a narrow application does not mean we can extrapolate that capability to something that is many times more complex.
throwaway675309 5y ago
I mean not really, even a layman non-artist can take a look at a generated picture from DALLE and determine if it meets some set of criteria from their clients. But the reverse is not true, they won't be able to properly vet a piece of code generated by an AI since that will require technical expertise. (You could argue if the piece of code produced the requisite set of output that they would have some marginal level of confidence but they would never really know for sure without being able to understand the actual code)

educaysean 5y ago

I have degrees and several years of experience in both fields, and I can tell you that both are creative professions where output is unbounded and the measure of success is subjective; these are the fields that will be safe for a while. IMO it's fields such as aircraft pilots who should be most worried.

nullc 5y ago
Interesting. Right now these ML models seem like essentially ideal sources of "hotel art" particularly because it's so subjective... you only need a human (the buyer!) to just briefly filter some candidates, which they would have been doing with an artist in the loop in any case. For things like aircraft pilots, it's both realtime-- which means 'reviewer' per output-- you haven't taken a highly trained pilot out of the loop, even if you relegated them to supervising the computer-- and life critical so merely "so/so" isn't good enough.
zarzavat 5y ago
The jobs of commercial pilots are very safe. Pilots are not there to fly the aircraft, the autopilot already does that. They are there to command the aircraft, in a pair in case one is incapacitated, making the best decisions for the people on board, and to troubleshoot issues when the worst happens. No AI or remote pilot is going to help when say... the aircraft loses all power. Or the airport has been taken over in a coup attempt and the pilot has to decide whether to escape or stay https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NcztK6VWadQ https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NcztK6VWadQ You can bet on major flights having two commercial pilots right up until the day we all get turned into paperclips.
- throwaway675309 5y ago
  It's not as safe as you believe it to be, in the case of total electrical power failure in a fly by wire airliner, and the corresponding loss of hydraulic pressure there's very little that a pilot can do with that point. As far as the extremely unlikely hostage situation goes, if it were AI controlled that would be even less likely attempts from people to hijack an airplane in the first place since there wouldn't be a human element a.k.a. a pilot that they could appeal to their emotion.

robbywashere_ 5y ago

Did coachman immediately retire when cars were invented or did they begin personal drivers or taxi drivers?

oldstrangers 5y ago

I think designers are becoming more valuable than ever. Designers can better help train the AI on what actually looks good, designers will (probably) always have a more intuitive understanding of UI/UX, designers can better implement the work the AI actually produces, and designers can coordinate designs across multiple different mediums and platforms. Additionally, the rise of no-code development is just extending the functionality of designers. I didn't take design seriously (as a career choice) growing up because I didn't see a future in it, now it pays my bills and the demand for my services just grows by the day. Similar argument to make with chess AI: it didn't make chess players obsolete, it made them stronger than ever.

adolph 5y ago
> I think designers are becoming more valuable than ever. Are all designers becoming more valuable or is a subset of really good ones going to reap the value increase and capture more of the previously available value?
- astrange 5y ago
  What job you have (theoretically) isn't due to "absolute advantage" but "comparative advantage". In other words, if someone else is a better designer than you, that actually has nothing to do with if they're going to take your job. They may have something better to do. An ML model isn't a worker no matter how good it is at painting, so rather than having a job it has input resources (RTX 3090s, electricity, maintenance engineers) but the concept is still important.
- oldstrangers 5y ago
  Never made an argument for all designers. Obviously the talent pool for any field is finite, and the best of that talent rises to the top. Good designers are being compensated increasingly well, hence "designers are becoming more valuable than ever." Bad designers are even being given better and better paying jobs as the top talent gets poached up quicker and quicker.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

bufferoverflow 5y ago

If this paper presents this neural net fairly, it pretty much destroys the market of illustrators. Most of the time when an illustration needed, it's described like "an astronaut on a horse in the style xyz".

stubish 5y ago
I'd argue that the market has already been destroyed at this point, at least in some areas. Book covers seem to have been stock image overlaid with text for a long time now, and a race to the bottom for both the people producing the stock images and the intern adding typography. By cutting costs and quality, the bar has been lowered to the point the task can be completely automated. Our AI overlords already have an advantage in that they have time to actually read the book, a potentially useful input. Maybe they won't even need the prompt - just generate an image for what is happening in the story for interesting looking paragraphs and let the author or editor pick. Given the cost cutting in publishing generally, editors will be next followed by the publishing houses themselves as the value they add gets lowered while the automation at Amazon gets better.
astrange 5y ago
The best reason to hire a person to do something is they'll give you what you need, not what you asked for. An ML model does not do this.
- Sateeshm 5y ago
  I agree. But i'm sure someone will create an ML model that might give what you need, not just what you asked for. Good enough for commercial purposes, mostly. Personally, I would never buy a painting generated by an ML model, or even a commercial illustration, if i can help it. The artist and their life experience is half the point of art, IMO.
dbspin 5y ago
You're describing the market for low end commodified illustration. e.g.: cheapest bidder contracts on Upwork or similar 'gig work' services. In practice in illustration (as in all arts) there are a variety of markets where different levels of talent, originality, reputation and creative engagement with the brief are more relevant. For editorial illustration, it's certainly not a case of 'find me someone who can draw X', and probably hasn't been since printing presses got good enough to print photographs.

csomar 5y ago

For computer work, I think there will be two category: Work with localized complexity (ie: draw an image of a horse with a crayon) and work with unbounded complexity (adding a button to VAT accounting after several meetings and reading on accounting rules). For the first category, Dall-E 2 and Codex are promising but not there yet. It's not clear how long it'll take them to reach the point where you no longer need people. I'm guessing 2-4 years but the last bits can be the hardest. As for the second category, we are not there yet. Self-driving cars/planes, and lots of other automation will be here and mature way before an AI can read and communicate through emails, understand project scope and then execute. Also lots of harmonization will have to take place in the information we exchange: emails, docs, chats, code, etc... That is, unless the browser is able to open a navigator and type an address.