Yes, the same thing happened before. There was a generation that tinkered with cars, there was a generation that tinkered with radios. There was a generation that tinkered with computer hardware. And then there was a generation that tinkered with software, and now it's going away.
The real question for me is whether AI will put humans out of most intellectual work, not just programming. Then, even if AI is shared equitably and satisfies our every need, most of us become some kind of sponges that don't need to think for a living. Or human intelligence will remain but only as a peacock's tail, like physical strength is now.
Maybe a true "friendly AI" would recognize the human need to be needed, for human capabilities to stay relevant, and choose to put limits on itself and other AIs for that reason.
The ideal outcome is that we automate all of it and then just do the things that we find fun. For those who really want to continue to be at the bleeding edge there will be the option of enhancement/merging/uploading/whatever winds up working in the end but I think that existence will be very different from our current human experience much like if you could uplift a chimp or a dog to the level of a human.
The arts might be the "peacock's tail of the mind". Many gatekeepers in the art world now are putting up roadblocks against AI art, and from that perspective they're right to do so.
The real question for me is whether AI will put humans out of most intellectual work, not just programming. Then, even if AI is shared equitably and satisfies our every need, most of us become some kind of sponges that don't need to think for a living. Or human intelligence will remain but only as a peacock's tail, like physical strength is now.
Maybe a true "friendly AI" would recognize the human need to be needed, for human capabilities to stay relevant, and choose to put limits on itself and other AIs for that reason.