Since the year 2022 when ChatGPT was first released, artists have been vocal with their opinions about generative AI. Writers and visual artists have joined arms to criticize the impact on the job market and the cultural landscape turning into an AI slop landfill.

Programmers are also impacted by this shift. Those who weren’t laid off are now being increasingly forced to use generative AI to write code. Those of us who enjoyed programming find ourselves in an increasingly managerial position, slowly losing the ability to write code ourselves. Those who didn’t enjoy programming in the first place are now expected to be more productive at the same hourly rate. Neither group seems particularly happy about this development.

The outcry of artists seems understood and even supported by the general public; for example, video game studios are increasingly unwilling to admit the use of any AI-based tools, fearing public outcry and reduced sales after several high-profile backlashes. However, I have personally found it difficult to explain the programmer position to my friends and colleagues outside the industry. While the layoffs evoke some sympathy, the general attitude remains one of indifference. Some people have long seen programming as a bubble that has finally popped: a costly intermediary that was necessary for business goals but now feels unnecessary. Others suggest that computer programmers have it so good now that they can simply message AI, sip martinis on yachts in the Bahamas and collect absurdly high paychecks.

One of the great book series about computer science is The Art of Computer Programming by the Stanford professor Donald Knuth, who recently celebrated his 88th birthday. I am fortunate enough to know him in person as a part of the small team that helped him realize the Czech premiere of his organ oratorio Fantasia Apocalyptica in 2019. Knuth is one of the sixty people to receive the Turing Award, often referred to as the Nobel Prize of computing. (People’s eyes light up when I mention Turing, even if many of them only know about the father of computing from the 2014 movie The Imitation Game featuring Benedict Cumberbatch.) Knuth’s contributions are numerous; perhaps most importantly, his work helped transform programming from a pure craft to a mathematical discipline, along with his contributions to systems like LaTeX, which are used to produce most scientific papers in STEM fields today.

Like Knuth, I consider programming a form of art, and code an expression of that art form. Due to the high cost of programming, practical concerns about code have always been at the forefront: how much the software costs to develop and maintain, how securely private data is stored, or how fast a game runs. But there are non-practical concerns that are equally important. Programmers share a rich heritage of two centuries of pioneering ideas, visionary figures, and programming languages – a unique culture on the brink of art, science, and industry. This culture is kept alive by reading, writing, and sharing code, driven by the hope that it will be useful, yet recognizing that it doesn’t need to be useful to be beautiful – an artistic expression capable of transforming both the author and the reader.

The artists are correct in pointing out that the programmers developed AI, which often frames them as the natural adversaries in the fight against generative AI. I myself did a PhD in an adjacent field and – while I do not claim direct contribution to the AI’s major developments – I like to imagine that I played a small part in advancing the field. Despite potential differences between the communities, I see that the programming community faces many of the same challenges as the artists. We should seek answers to what it means to be a human creator in the age of AI and how to preserve artistic expression together.