Back in the 16th and 17th centuries, if you wanted to represent the world realistically, you had to do it by hand. Artists spent years learning perspective, anatomy, light, and all the technical skill needed to make a flat surface feel real. That was the craft. Then tools like the camera obscura started entering the picture. It could project a scene and help the artist with proportion, perspective, and lighting. Some people saw that as a shortcut. Maybe even cheating. But it didn’t make the art for them. It just removed some of the mechanical burden, so the artist could focus more on what actually made the work powerful: composition, mood, detail, and interpretation. That feels a lot like where coding is right now. For a long time, being a programmer meant writing everything yourself. Now AI can do a lot of that heavy lifting. And people react the same way they always do when a new tool shows up: they say it’s ruining the craft. But maybe it’s not ruining the craft. Maybe it’s changing it. The camera obscura didn’t kill painting. Photography didn’t kill art either. What changed was the role of the human. Once the tool could handle more of the raw technical work, human value moved higher, toward judgment, taste, style, ideas, and intention. That may be exactly what’s happening with software now. The skill is becoming less about writing every single line manually, and more about knowing what to build, how the pieces fit together, what tradeoffs matter, and whether the result actually solves a real problem. submitted by /u/Mountain_Finger4856
Originally posted by u/Mountain_Finger4856 on r/ArtificialInteligence
You must log in or # to comment.