JWcph, Radicalized By DecencyFeb 22

RE: https://mstdn.ca/@drikanis/116107120926277506

I'd like to comment on the common "AI is just a tool" thing: I'm a woodworker by training & that means a lot of machines - but almost every craftsperson knows how to do their job with hand tools, or "lesser" machines.

Similarly, a writer can write without a text editor - just as well, only slower.

If loss of a tool = loss of your skill & knowledge, then that tool isn't an asset, it's a liability. You're signing over your ability to do business to whoever sells & maintains that tool.

#AI

Show threadArtemisFeb 22
@jwcph Funnily enough I wanted to kind of challenge you with saying that it's unlikely a programmer would be able to write a complex program "by hand" (using assembly) but... a sufficiently motivated programmer probably could. It would be an absolutely miserable experience, you'd have to invent a lot from the first principles, but in the end it's all system calls and the documentation is out there.
Show threadfedithom

@art_codesmith

The point was, that vibe coders can't "code" at all without AI. And pre-AI, people already wrote software. So ... What was your point again?

@jwcph

Feb 22 at 4:52pmWeb
Show threadArtemisFeb 22
@fedithom @jwcph My point is that you can apply similar logic to compilers and programming languages. If you’re proficient at making web apps in Python, you maybe *could* make one in assembly, but it would take a lot of time and effort and, as I said, would probably not be a good experience.
Show threadandrew blinnFeb 22
@art_codesmith @fedithom @jwcph this is an interesting point and maybe reflective of why llm adoption has been somewhat less controversial among programmers than writers (or woodworkers); the vast majority of programmers already had a near-total dependence on tools, so another level of abstraction is less of a bridge too far
Show threadfedithomFeb 22

@disconcision @art_codesmith

But can we keep the distinction between using something as a tool and using something as the only means to get any work done? @jwcph

Show threadandrew blinnFeb 22
@fedithom @art_codesmith @jwcph agreed that this seems like a meaningful distinction; im saying that for the vast majority of programmers, compilers fall into the category of 'things without which its not possible to get any work done'. writing any machine code at all is a fairly rare skill, and developing non-trivial applications using it is almost non-existent outside of certain specialized sub-domains. this seems to make programming unlike many other arts/crafts, where its the other way around (only certain specific sub-domains basically require specialized tools; many others are doable by hand by most practitioners)
Show threadandrew blinnFeb 22
@fedithom @art_codesmith @jwcph (nb i don't really know how relatively true this is for other crafts in general as opposed to programming. i would assume that somewhat adept at digital painting is probably also decent at hand sketching, but also that many/most painters couldn't make their own paints or brushes. so it likely depends on what part of the skill one considers incidental versus essential)
Show threadDavid J. AtkinsonFeb 22

@art_codesmith @jwcph @fedithom
1. I think it is safe to say that competent #software engineers know their tools and an early step in any non-trivial project is to gather tools or write new ones if needed. But we don’t (and cannot) write all of them from scratch because it is too much to keep in our heads AND there are smarter people out there who’ve already done the work. We can do what we do only by leveraging the work of others.

2. A tool created by automatic programming is just as useful as one created by a human. If you trust it to work in your use case then an AI-created tool is no different.

3. The question to be answered is the same for any software tool: Why do I trust it? If you are super-rigorous then you will want to use a formal logic-checking tool to prove the software is correct. That’s really hard and computationally intractable for non-trivial software.

4. ALL software contains residual errors, but our ways of justifying trust in software are incomplete and involve some kind of inductive leap that in the best case leaves you with a quantifiable idea of the risk of failure.

#AI is just software. Do with it what you do with any other software.

Show threadRicardo HarvinFeb 22

@art_codesmith @[email protected] @jwcph

"If you're not mining and refining the materials and building the chips..."

You're conflating different scenarios to the point of absurdity.

Show threadArtemisFeb 22
@ricardoharvin @jwcph Maybe? I don't know. It was defnitely not my intention.
Maybe I've read too deep into this but, for me, writing in assembly is the best analogy for woodworking with manual tools.
Using a high-level language would be like working with well-developed power tools.
(Using AI... well, the advocates think that it's like working with a super-fancy programmable machine but the motors are busted and the tolerances are between "frick" and "all".)