It’s just a solution that might scratch the itch but never fully blow you away. One time use software essentially.
If that is good or bad remains to be seen.
I dislike cooking; I don't call myself a chef, nor go on cooking forums saying they're all idiots for churning butter as a hobby, and telling them they are luddite dinosaurs just because I bought myself an Instant Pot.
I explained it yesterday that it's no different than Linq powered by EF Core. You still need to understand the database and how SQL will work, or should. If you don't, you're queries will be slow and inefficient, hazardlessly oftentimes.
LLMs are an impressive abstraction, but they are not magic...yet. or maybe it is, but you still need to figure out the incantations. Not that I like to uptick and witchcraft, so I hate that analogy.
All I see is a fast food factory. Sure it's interesting that you can produce so much so quickly. But what is produced is endlessly uninteresting to me. It doesn't help that all the harness building is just SEO in disguise. Trial and error.
I don't doubt that agentic programming makes it possible to produce faster, but it also comes at a great cost for me, which is that I largely don't enjoy my job anymore. If I was given the choice between that and halving my salary I would have chosen the latter.
Few cars are manual steering, manual brakes, manual transmission.
Few grappling bodies go all Greek-naked.
Few chess bodies forbid researching previous games or your opponent.
The list is indeed endless, and every single person thinks they are using just the right amount of assistance; anything less is pointlessly difficult, anything more is cheating that takes the sport out.
Me, I've been a hobbyist programmer since youth (6502 assembly, represent). I'm having a blast "writing" software without touching a line of code. Sure, I'm old, and maybe I'm like those guys blasting Veyrons through highways, relying on traction control and all the computers to let me drive beyond my abilities. And... ok? I'm having fun, even if I'm not doing it right, by random anonymous peoples' views.
And that’s totally fine, enjoy your hobby however you enjoy it best. Most people programming by hand for fun don’t care that you program with an LLM for fun. The problems come when those two worlds collide, like in the linked GitHub issue, in chess engine leaderboards. In the long run for both groups to have their fun and friendly competition you’ll need two separate leaderboards. This is also very common in other hobbies. In racing there are car classes so that your Veyron and someone’s old Miata don’t go head to head. In combat sports there’s weight classes. Most sports separate amateurs and pros. Usually there is respect across the group boundaries and appreciation for the other groups deeply specialized skill. There’s even the concept of cross training to get better in your flavor of a sport. This will be figured out with programming as well.
But I think you’re on to something important: framing programming as a competition of intrinsic skill where rules are necessary to equalize. That’s certainly true in some cases, and more power to those who enjoy it.
I guess I’m just more of a product guy these days, where the equalizer is the market and the consumers rather than the implementation methodology.
Not that it’s about me, but I was doing programming competitions 25 years ago, half of which were on paper with no keyboard allowed.
Not everyone has to agree. Just everyone in a particular group at a particular time. Grappling competitions exist and so do MMA competitions, and both of them will expect you to follow their own rules.
I don't think there is insignificant group who would say that using LLM to write a book does not make you an author. Or make a song musician. Or draw a picture a painter or artist.
This just somewhat baffles me... Or maybe the LLM for programming people all believe that you are as much artist if you use AI in those fields and the product generates as such is as if not more valuable than one by more traditional means.
My retort is usually a variation of one I've already posted in this thread: they do that to the same extent that taxis enable everyone to drive, which is something most people will intuitively understand as nonsense, even if they've given clear instructions to the driver and even though they've arrived at the intended destination. If you aren't driving, you aren't driving. If anything, the taxi service enables more people not to drive.
They're talking about the result, one must think. The idea that people who could not have approximate pictures of ideas that lived in their head can now have those things. They didn't create them by an in depth process, of course, and would be wrong to pass it off as though they did. But there is some value to the enjoyment gained from that existing (whether that relatively trival enjoyment is offset by other harms is for the reader to decide).
You're talking about the process and/or the developing of the skill of crafting and thinking about images better.
We also lack words to talk clearly about the distinction here around "make". Did I make a piece of art if I created a file on a computer in photoshop and then printed it? or did the printer make it? Did photoshop make it? (imo, all are true, but in differing senses of the word make). It seems to me that there is a sense that, no matter how trivial their involvement, a user of some AI art app is "making" something, in the same sense that steve jobs "made" the iPhone. In both cases, an engineer that literally designed the iPhone or an artist that spent years would perhaps rightfully feel upset by such characterization, but to get across the point cleanly is harder.
It's the same for the taxi. If I can't drive (perhaps I never learned, or some flaw with my body doesn't let me), a taxi does enable some things I could never do before. I am, of course, not literally the one driving. But if I can get to the shop myself now, there is something there.
Maybe they are, but in that case it's a frequent source of equivocation because people will conflate the process of their making with the result of some other process so as to proclaim themselves artists, musicians, programmers or whatever for writing something that they themselves wouldn't consider art or music unto itself in the first place, and having a machine generate something which they do consider to be art or music based on that.
> Did I make a piece of art if I created a file on a computer in photoshop and then printed it?
Funnily enough people don't usually have a problem with this question when it comes to driving. Your actions' effect on the propulsion of the car are ultimately indirect, and there are many systems which assist the person behind the wheel even when they are engaging directly with all their means of control, e.g. an engine, ABS, EPS, yet no one will immediately feel a need to wax philosophical about whether the driver is actually driving or not because of that. We recognize that in a car which requires a driver at all there is substantial ongoing involvement from the person behind the wheel in making the car go as desired and deciding what means available to apply in order to go about that, without whom there is at best no going anywhere at all, and that involvement is what driving is.
> If I can't drive (perhaps I never learned, or some flaw with my body doesn't let me), a taxi does enable some things I could never do before. I am, of course, not literally the one driving. But if I can get to the shop myself now, there is something there.
Which is not the thing in question. If AI tools have generated something you find beautiful or interesting, by all means enjoy that for what it is. If the taxi takes you to the store, by all means enjoy that.
A programmer that has climbed up the ladder in their field, on the other hand, often stopped coding themselves. Instead, they manage others who code, or provide vision/direction on the project.
I think it really depends on what people on the senior level of your field do. If they mostly move to managerial roles, then it's much more likely they'd embrace LLM.
Ironically I observe this in academia too. Professors (who often stopped doing hands-on research, but only provide guidance to postdocs and grad students in their research) tend to embrace LLM more than the fields you mentioned.
Only difference is I’m prompting LLMs rather than engineering teams. But honestly it’s not all that different, except that in the hobby flavor I can write specs that would take tens or hundreds of engineers to implement.
Maybe it all comes down to semantics: does “programming” mean typing in code, designing app architecture, or producing software? When I was young I was probably 75 / 5 / 20 between those. Now I’m 5 / 20 / 75. Maybe it merits a different word?
Not to diminish your enjoyment, you’re completely entitled to it, I just think this is a bit of a false equivalence
Sometimes I'm having fun getting to the output I want and otherwise wouldn't have had time to. Sometimes I'm having fun exploring the code.
I don't care if someone don't see the value in one or the other of those, and to me they stand on equal footing as things I find both fun and valuable for different reasons.
Tell me you are not in European or African continent without telling me.
When I see all those "show HN" projects that are slot level code it feels like they dont care about the result that much and just want to showcase their idea in a more tactile way, but there is no actual proper execution to make the thought into matter so to speak
There's also a myriad of other creative ways to proxy your way out of the general costs (time, space and money) if you check out the term "poorhammer".
Yes, sure, you can buy the figurine and get the joy of painting it. But there's new things you can do now too, things you couldn't dream about before.
But I'll grant you this, the AI coding extinction event is so severe that I do believe we need to support anyone trying to preserve any memory of it. Like, we need to build entire museums, one for each programming language.
if that's so awesome then why isn't everybody doing it?
I never dreamt about stuff like that, but are there actually people who are like "oh thank God I can finally make my AI movies with my figurines and other stuff I have laying around"
honestly you sound too enthusiastic about this, like Sam Altman "AI podcast about your kids" tier enthusiastic
I think what people want is to tell a story that's in their imagination, and no current AI is up to that task (at least in video format). Great for making an animated PNG for a meme, but not for adapting that fanfic you are writing.
This is what I don't like about the anti stance, it's just so often dismissive when people are excited about something.
If you want to do AI movies, join the AI movie community.
The hobby programming community isn't about vibe coding, that's what the vibe coding community is for.
1. Some programme because it’s the one of 2 ways to get the things they want (another way is hiring a team to code for them). Now that they have vibe coding, they’d happily never touch a line of code again. 2. Other people programmes because they just enjoy it. Vibe coding ruins the best part for them. Like telling a foodie, "Good news! I built a robot to eat your food for you."
Most people getting paid to code are probably somewhere in the middle?
But nowadays hand-writing code at work is starting to feel kinda 'illegal'. The manager is gonna ping you just because you fall behind on the company's token waste leaderboard.
Maybe it's just another "hobby should never become job" story?
Also like building a robot to cook food for you. Sure, it's fine for mass produced meals, but it won't replace a top-notch chef.
People in it just for the money won't care about craft - you see the same thing in plumbing. And when there's enough money and scale on the line, craft becomes progressively more niche - that is why Ikea furniture is a thing. And you can even say that there is craft in Ikea, just not along the axes a traditional furniture maker or user would consider.
With respect to code it's a little murky but I guess the tension really is enjoying the process enough while being able to output the desired quality, volume and velocity required of you.
Quality is usually the stickler because it's invisible to the end user and requirement setter but sometimes quality affects both ergonomics and future delivery and sometimes it's purely self-satisfactory. That isn't a value judgment, making things well is a gratifying and edifying experience - so much so that this practice overlaps with Shinto philosophy.... but not many people are going to pay you to have that experience.
How do we filter out these people during an interview?
Just start sponsoring H1B visas
(Assuming "these people" is a euphemism for "skilled engineers")