A recent article by senior editor Julia Hider delves into the use of the artificial intelligence (AI) tool ChatGPT for generating G-code programming automatically. The article raises the question of whether AI can replace CNC programmers, but the conclusion is that it cannot entirely replace them; rather, it can assist by automating certain aspects of their tasks.
This query about the potential replacement of human roles by AI resonates with the author, drawing parallels to a similar question faced by writers, including Julia and the entire writing staff of the site. The question emerges more frequently, given that many have explored programming through ChatGPT, witnessing coherent composition in response to prompts. The question that arises is: Can AI replace writers?
The response, applicable to both writers and programmers, is contingent on the understanding of the roles these professionals play. AI is certainly capable of generating written content in various forms, adhering to grammar rules, sentence rhythm, and paragraph structure. However, the ability to replace writers or programmers entirely is questioned.
For writers, the essence of their work lies in understanding and exploring developments and ideas that are valuable for readers. They cultivate curiosity about reader interests, pose questions, and convey insights. While AI can produce credible content, it lacks the ability to comprehend human experiences, meaning, and the nuanced aspects that writers aim to convey to their audience.
The analysis extends beyond writers and includes programmers, emphasizing the distinction between “artificial” intelligence and real intelligence. The fundamental question revolves around whether AI, as a complex algorithmic system, can truly replicate the depth of human intelligence and understanding. The author suggests that the soul, something beyond a machine, is integral to understanding and serving humanity, and AI, in its current form, remains a tool.
This perspective aligns with the belief that AI can program but cannot fully replace programmers. While it may generate G-code sequences based on input parameters, the critical thinking, decision-making, and consideration of various factors involved in programming are uniquely human. The exploration and understanding required in programming, similar to writing, involve a depth that AI, as a tool, cannot entirely encompass.
In essence, the article emphasizes that AI is a valuable tool but falls short of replicating the intricate aspects of human intelligence, meaning-making, and the purposeful service to people that writers, programmers, and various other professionals provide.
Dhairya Saraswat 
Khushi Hirve