The winning scenario for agent-assisted code, design, science, etc. is humans having more time to do creative and impactful thinking because computers/LLMs do the tedious setup, easily verified work, and gather preliminary materials that humans turn into inventions.

FWIW, I don’t think the worst scenarios are likely. The future isn’t atrophying literacy rates or people turning off their brains to tell LLMs what to do. It’s probably not Malthusian job scarcity or Keynesian leisure abundance, either.

The best outcome, IMO, is that producing almost-good-enough software, design, science, etc. is possible for more people, particularly those without specialist degrees.

You won’t have gym owners producing billion dollar SaaS companies, but they might produce software good enough to run their business without needing to contract out to a software developer.

You won’t have software developers producing the same level of design and art direction you see in major films. You might see them producing design good enough and sufficiently distinct that they can wait to bring a designer on until they’ve found their market.

You won’t have writers discovering new axioms of math and science, but you might see them correctly apply statistics and physics so that stories about finance and space battles are slightly more realistic.😉

In short: experts in topic A won’t find themselves held back by having an idea that requires expertise in topic A and topic B, where topic B is too deep for them to “just get good at”. Fewer Wozniaks will have to find their Steve Jobs, fewer Springsteens will have to find their Landaus.

It won’t exactly be you can just do stuff. But, perhaps you can get far enough along that collaborators to fill in the specialties you don’t can find you.