it's also a matter of conscience to not use AI or, if you do, do it very sparingly (and, indeed, always with that human oversight -- not just "for now")! And no, AI will absolutely NOT "become better in the future" because that is logically impossible; it can only become more complex and yet harder to "see through". The best, and perhaps the only really useful, use of AI is for no-code tools that save us the annoyance of doing the much-hated and time-consuming coding ourselves. You still need a human as a project lead (unless you're okay with garbage results) but replacing a coder is logically a good fit for AI. Actual decision-making and Project management or e. g. writing a book is not "coding" and, therefore, a different matter altogehter; anyone who has not gone entirely delusional as a result of AI-mania will understand that differentiation. Proof BTW of there actually being "some depth" behind my argument and this being more than just "for contrarianism's sake" @Mark Coleman or @Silvio Ferreira, and something I can easily "take the backlash" for as well @Bettina Brandt, because I understand the tech well enough to know my claim is based on facts of nature and logic. AI will not alter the size of the planet. Unleasshing AOL users onto the WWW -- though bad enough ;) -- did not suddenly abolish basic needs like food, shelter and clothing! That said, I still use AI for SOME (very select) aspects of my work, so nobody can accuse me of being "ignorant" -- also, it's (very much!) open to debate what' more ignorant: using it or not using it :))) As a systems developer, I know how dumb IT is (includes "AI"!) and that it is conceptually and logically incapable of innovation -- and always will be! -- unless humans innovate for the dumb metal that can't. This is not rocket science and should be easy to comprehend -- unless it's disputed for the sake of *marketing AI*, this time...!