> CGI can be automated Having worked in CG for several decades, this is a pretty misleading summary. CG takes a lot of manual work, and there are other reasons

> CGI can be automated Having worked in CG for several decades, this is a pretty misleading summary. CG takes a lot of manual work, and there are other reasons and benefits to using CG than how much manual work it takes. It’s often less work than practical but not always. There are certain kinds of things that can be automated (with a lot of manual setup work!) but most of what you see in movies also involves lots and lots of manual work for every single shot. It’s not unlike how machines get used to automate certain parts of practical effects work, using for example, compressors, electrical rigging, vehicles, pneumatics & hydraulics, gas & explosives, etc.. > We already see people getting $MODELLING_PROGRAM proficient in a few weeks. This is similar to saying we already see people getting C++ proficient in a few weeks. Some people can write very useful & interesting programs within a few weeks, but nobody understands all of it by then, and nobody’s getting a high paid career on just a few weeks of noodling. It takes a long time to understand all the ins and outs, and independently it takes a long time to understand complementary computer science fundamentals. Same is true for Maya, Blender, Houdini, etc.. Someone might have something cool to show after a few weeks, but nobody is ready to make a CG movie by then, and nobody is landing the good jobs in CG. (By “nobody” I’m talking about statistical relevance, not that it has never happened.) Another reason a few weeks is insufficient for landing good jobs is that the CG industry is highly competitive; you have to be better than the guy who’s gone to art school and played in Blender for a few years if you want that job.