We can already see it. Take a look at AI image generation a few years ago. People were creating complex prompts, tweaking values, adding overlay models, stringing together several AI tools to get to a decent output. Now you can get a better result typing a simple phrase into one of the many major AI web interfaces. Tools like adobe have simplified all these features to the point where they can be learnt in under 5mins.

This is only going to be the start once AI gets good it will be so easy to use I doubt there will be any human unable to use it. Its the nature of natural language queries and companies working to build a model that can handle "anything" thrown at it.

Skill to effective output quality.

I'm sure there are people who are more skilled at using a cell phone than I am. It doesn't matter.

Similarly, we all have had co-workers or friends who aren't very good at using search engines. They still use them and largely still have jobs.

Now that I think of it, most regularly-used technology is like this. Cars, dishwashers, keyboards, electric shavers. There is a baseline level of skill required for operation, but the marginal benefits for being more skilled than the baseline drop off pretty quickly.

Does everything always need precedence?

I think you mean precedents but in any case the precedent is that often a new tech is heralded with “this time is different! Ignore the precedents” and yet so far that has been wrong every time.

One day the sun won’t rise in the morning but it’s not something I’m going to plan on happening in my lifetime.

Jep, sorry not an native english speaker.

It’s been wrong every time, except for the times it wasn’t. Nobody remembers those though. Something something confirmation bias.

Thank you. AI is different from tools we've seen before. There won't always be a precedent to refer to.

> Has this been true for any technology, ever?

Yes?

Try abacus, slide rules or mechanical calculating machines vs electronic calculators.

Or ancient vs modern computers and software. They didn't even have "end-users" like we understand them now, every computer user was a specialist.

Programming.

Writing. Quill vs. ballpen, but also alphabets vs what you had to write before.

Photography, more than one big jump in usability. Film cameras, projectors/screens.

Transportation: From navigation to piloting aircraft or cars. Originally you had to be a part-time mechanic.

Many advanced (i.e. more complex than e.g. a hammer) tools in manufacturing or at home.

I would argue that for all of these there's still a skill element evolved.

If I give an accountant an electronic calculator and a problem to solve, they'll be more efficient than me

If I give someone who spent thousands of hours on a computer a task on it, they'll be able to do more than my parents

If I give someone that writes a lot a ballpen, their writing will be faster and more legible than someone like me who barely writes on paper.

Okay what we're saying is slightly different, you mean to reach a certain bar. I kind of agree to that

Through the marginal improvement is still pretty high to knowing how the tools work and how to use them more effectively, in a way that people that spend time with the tools will be _more_ effective

And all of these still require skills today. Yes, electronic calculators too.

See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45983440

Are you really claiming that calculators require no skill?

See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45983440