Funny: I've found the opposite. They're incredible and amazing for non-technical users (i.e., people with next-to-no creative or critical skill in the area), bu

Funny: I've found the opposite. They're incredible and amazing for non-technical users (i.e., people with next-to-no creative or critical skill in the area), but pretty bad for experts (e.g. skilled artists, programmers, writers). I've written something up about AI proofreading: https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/396009/308065 https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/396009/308065. I've got nothing for code, because the overwhelming consensus of my peers is that AI-generated code is either demonstrable plagiarism (as in, you can track down the source with enough effort) or garbage, or both. For graphics, anyone who's seen the world can see the problems (people look like plastic, wrong numbers of fingers, wrong teeth and hair, things in the background affecting things in the foreground, local regions that don't make sense given the global context). > My team has already seen a programming improvement of 40% in speed, and less buggy code. Then there was something seriously wrong with your old process. You haven't fixed those problems: you've just added another layer on top. Unless "AI" is fundamentally different to all the other layers we've tried in the past, this will bite you later.