> Everyone who wants to.
Yes, and that's a good thing.
Though I'd argue the bar has been on a downward trajectory for decades, is now plummeting with AI, and still we don't see a huge influx of the newly enabled. At the margins, yes. Some small business owners, some curious students, etc, are making things they wouldn't have before. But it doesn't feel like a revolution of self-made tools by the non-technical. And I don't think one is coming. And I don't think it's because it's still too hard.
Rome wasn't built in a day, as they say. It takes time for the information to disseminate. Perhaps tools like this will be the watershed moment that speeds up the flow. Like the time back ~1990 when I received GFA BASIC on a magazine cover disk and it unlocked the knowledge that I could make anything I wanted to. It took me 33 years from then to get a Game Of The Year. Good things take time. Hopefully less in future :)
Congrats on your game of the year.
I do agree it takes time for things to be fully absorbed into the culture, and the full impact of even the current state of AI has not been felt. But I stand by my claim that, basically, many many people have no interest in being makers, and no amount of friction-easing will change that. I think it's a hard thing to grasp for people with a natural interest in math/CS/etc. I came to my current position reluctantly, after teaching undergrads in both math and humanities, and after many conversations with non-technical (and often very smart) friends. Some people are just not interested in using their mind that way, just like some people like some games but not others.
I think you're looking at it as glass half empty (all the people who won't make, regardless) and I'm looking at it as glass half full (all the people who will become makers). Of course both are correct.