Yes, I completely agree, I always fondly remember his game "drowning in problems"[1] because of the notable creativity behind it. Despite barely having an interface, it managed to entertain me until the end.
i loved my time at openai. it was transformative for me personally, and hopefully the world a little bit. most of all i loved working with such talented people.
I'm not sure why the downvotes, I think it's a reasonable opinion. But I disagree, I think what is being sought is automation close to intelligence, and if progress continues (which is questionable itself), this system could eventually supplant humans in varying degrees. Initially, this may manifest pragmatically with salary cuts and job losses. However, in the long term, it may evolve to a more real and comprehensive overhaul of our roles. I think the main difference in my understanding is that it is not a tool like a hammer, it is more a tool that has the potential to design other tools (so far very simple) but if its capacity increases, it could automate significant parts of our work.
I completely agree, and I think that's precisely the heart of the matter. Salaries will likely begin to decrease, or at the very least, they won't increase at the rate they would have if this technology didn't exist. It seems inevitable to me that programming will become just another job. It's saddening because I deeply love to code and understand the inner workings of it all.
I think that if that were the case, the change would be brutal. First, because as a comment below suggests, fewer people would be involved, so coordination would be simplified. Second, because many more people could access these coordination positions, and I think it would be likely that other professions would take on those roles, professions or personality types that are not usually "good coders" but now wouldn't need to be, since the machine itself could explain, for example, the general functioning of what is being produced. Therefore, I would expect the job field to be radically affected and salaries severely reduced.
And also much cheaper, which I think is one of the main problems. If less knowledge is needed to solve these problems, then you should pay less for them. The article makes a comparison with chess, which seems absurd to me, because, although there are more people playing chess than ever before, this is due, in my opinion, to the fact that the goal continues to be to defeat another human playing, so even though it is impossible to beat a machine at the game, it does not affect the gameplay with other humans. On the other hand, coding is a job for many, what sense would it make to pay, or pay the same to a human, if a program can produce higher quality code?