That might be the case for you, but something doesn’t need to be universally true for it to be true enough to matter. Find any thread about AI art around here and check out how many people have open contempt for artists’ skills. I remember the t-shirts I saw a few sys admins wearing in the nineties that said “stop bothering me or I’ll replace you with a short shell script.” In the decades I worked in tech, I never saw that attitude wane. I saw a thread here within the past year or two where one guy said he couldn’t take medical doctors and auto mechanics seriously because they lacked the superior troubleshooting skills of a software developer. Seriously. That’s obviously not everybody, but it’s deeefinitely a thing.
I believe it comes from low self esteem initially. Then finding their way into computers, where they then indeed have higher skills than average and maybe indeed observed that the job of some people could be automated by a shell script. So ... lots of ungrounded ego suddenly, but in their new guru ego state, they extrapolated from such isolated cases to everywhere.
I also remember the hostility of my informal universities IT chat groups. Newbs were rather insulted for not knowing basic stuff, instead of helping them. A truly confident person does not feel the need to do that. (and it was amazing having a couple of those persons writing very helpful responses in the middle of all the insulting garbage)
> Find any thread about AI art around here and check out how many people have open contempt for artists’ skills.
I don't think that's entirely true, what I usually see is people that think AI art is just as good as many artists.
You can be impressed by something and still think a machine can do it just as well. People that can do complex mental arithmetic are impressive, even if that skill is mostly obsolete by calculators.
There are many more than three "dimensions" if I may use the term loosely, in software or hardware engineering.
Cost, safety, interaction between subsystems (developed by different engineering disciplines), tolerances, supply chain, manufacturing, reliability, the laws of physics, possibly chemistry and environmental interactions, regulatory, investor forgiveness, etc.
Traditional engineering also doesn't have the option of throwing arbitrary levels of complexity at a problem, which means working within tight constraints.
I'm not an engineer myself, but a scientist working for a company that makes measurement equipment. It wouldn't be fair for me to say that any engineering discipline is more challenging, since I'm in none of them. I've observed engineering projects for roughly 3 decades.
The top three are typically quality, budget and time. Usually a compromise is needed on one of these. You could replace quality with features in SW dev.
Scope is more of a dimension than quality. In theory it might be possible to accept lower quality in order to cut the budget or accelerate the time but in practice that doesn't seem to work. Any significant reduction in quality usually causes the project to grind to a halt after the prototype stage. You just can't build any new features when everything is broken.
Not at all. Talented human artists still impress me as doing the same level of deep "wizardry" that programmers are stereotyped with.