The advent of ChatGPT—a bot created by OpenAI—has sent ripples of concern across various professions, including among novice programmers. It is said that some small companies have already started using, or plan to use, chatbots to save on labor costs. Will ChatGPT replace programmers? Should professionals in this field start considering retraining before it’s too late?
The Threat
Apocalyptic catastrophes threatening humanity due to the implementation of artificial intelligence have been depicted in science fiction novels. Can a neural network completely replace engineers, designers, and programmers? And are those right who demand an immediate halt to AI system training, fearing that further advancement could push humanity to the brink of extinction?
The situation surrounding AI is not new. Such heated debates and clashing opinions on the ‘terrible end’ of humanity arise each time completely new, revolutionary technologies appear. These technologies have the potential to bring humanity significant benefits, as well as irreparable harm. Everything will depend on how correctly we can manage the new opportunities.
AI rapidly encompasses more and more aspects of life. Neural networks are already diagnosing illnesses, creating art, writing programs, and performing many other tasks. Enthusiasts believe that neural networks will soon be able to manage state developments, so whoever becomes a leader in this area will rule the world.
However, some opine that the current development of society does not allow the use of AI without harming itself. Therefore, opponents call for a halt to developments before a disaster occurs. They argue that by creating digital minds, scientists cannot control them, so it’s impossible to predict AI’s behavior. For instance, what if it decides to cleanse the planet of annoying humans who use it for their trivial tasks?
Affected Areas
The application of neural network capabilities touches almost all kinds of human activities. AI can become a reliable tool in medicine, education, industry, traffic organization, etc. But the most widespread use of AI is in IT. Many developers fear that new technologies may render them jobless.
However, it’s unlikely that the profession of a programmer will become redundant anytime soon. Neural networks can generate programming code, but AI lacks the ability to understand context, no matter how detailed the task set by the user is.
Experienced developers believe that chatbots can be quite useful at work. Neural networks are capable of responding well to common questions because they have basic knowledge. However, they cannot answer complex questions that require a creative approach.
The currently available version of ChatGPT can become a valuable programmer’s assistant. It’s unlikely that the bot could autonomously develop a new application, but suitable queries can help quickly create a solid ‘skeleton’ for the future software product.
Another issue is that these simple tasks, which ChatGPT can successfully handle, are currently entrusted to junior programmers. Thus, there might indeed be problems with employment in the junior niche. It means that programmers have the incentive to strive to improve their level, rather than getting stuck for years at the junior level, solving elementary tasks.
Neural networks can’t replace specialists, primarily because AI output requires oversight. It’s not possible to simply submit a query and then release the product for sale. Neural networks will not search for bugs in their work and take care of their correction. The fact is, AI doesn’t understand how programming languages work, the bot simply collects pieces of code from its knowledge base. Specialists will need to perform control and make revisions.
Conclusions
Thus, with the implementation of ChatGPT, there are certain risks to the labor market for programmers. AI can only replace entry-level specialists who are tasked with performing elementary routine tasks. For experienced specialists, AI will help in software creation. In other words, in skilled hands, the neural network is a convenient assistant, but certainly no replacement for the specialist.
