[Kazik24]

I think it's a matter of perspective. Creativity as an ability to create something new will always be relevant. At the core concept, creative ideas are just ideas, and something needs to translate them into the real world. Right now we are learning skills to do this. In the future, AI could do it for us.

In that case, there is an information bottleneck. If you, as a single entity, have an idea and skills needed to translate it, then internal communication in your brain is very fast. But when we as a creator have an idea and describe it to AI (or even other humans), there is some very lossy compression going on.

Creative jobs in 10 years will probably shift to focus more on being able to communicate those ideas well to "execution units" and back, so the skill to learn would be mapping some internal "mindset" of an AI to predict outcomes.

[noduerme]

Bear with me here because there is some validity to your point and I think it manifests in the current technology. One oddity with copilot is that it invents CSS class names. E.g. if I say:

//a full screen image centered vertically and horizontally, no more than 80% screen height, which removes when you click anywhere, include the CSS in the code

It does actually write some style sheets into the JS...but it then invents a bunch of class names. I went over and opened a CSS doc to see if it would complete those. It didn't, not properly. There's no way this thing can write an intelligently designed application, at present; someone has to read and fully understand everything it spits out. To the extent that we need people to do that, to interpret the AI's guidance, I guess, the priesthood is safe.

But who will train for it, what trainee will understand the language, when the first 99% of what you write is written for you?