Lars SørensenMar 7
Ada Worcester 🏳️‍⚧️
The most surreal thing about AI coding shit taking on is the revelation that so many people who do this thing that I love, seem to have no care for the craft at all. Even people who I would have pointed at, years ago, as those who clearly care. And I know it has always been Just A Job for many people, but holy shit, do you even care a little bit?
We humans are not merely bad at it, we have people who have been doing the work with no desire to be good at it in the first place.
Mar 5 at 7:16pmWeb
Show threadAda Worcester 🏳️‍⚧️Mar 5
If you don’t like programming, I invite you to do something else with your time instead of promoting the machine that lets you not do it. Some people actually like it, you jerks.
Show threadCap YbarraMar 5
@pikhq how will they make a billion dollars off the rest of us then though
Show threadPaul SomeoneElseMar 5
word
Show threadOzzelot Mar 7
@pkw
i mean if you like word...
@pikhq
Show threadJared White (ResistanceNet ✊)Mar 5

@pikhq Seriously, "thank GAWD I never have to type code into a code editor ever again" is I thought I've had…virtually never!

Sure, there are days when the problem I'm working on is tough, or I'm having to learn some new tool or technique or API which is frustrating. In such moments, would I like a "Make This Work Now" button? I guess so.

But by golly, I *enjoy* programming. And while programming is a lot more than simply conceiving of and typing code, I do enjoy that quite a lot.

Show threadJaneishlyMar 6
@pikhq ditto for translation. I don't want to review AI output, I want to generate my own words, ta.
Show threadDianeMar 6

@pikhq

Why can't AI do something useful like fill out expense reports or recommend removing people from being forced to attend meetings that are not relevant to them.

Show threadLeah BobetMar 6
@alienghic @pikhq I will sign on to the AI that scrubs behind the stove or autoschedules the increasingly less patient followup emails with people who aren't doing things they said they would.
Show threadMichael WestergaardMar 6
I know a non-trivial amount of people who cannot code, but who use AI to make programs. They get excited from being able to create. And I find that great.

Their annoying mistake is that since AI enabled them to go from being unable to being able to make programs, it will make a developer who already can code better at making programs.

It's like offering a wheelchair to somebody that walks: just because it allows somebody with broken legs to move, it does not make the walking better at walking. But it has a place in aiding those that cannot move without it.
Show threadKat SMar 6

@michael Thing is, it doesn't make you "able to create."
It provides a convenient way of getting the thing.

This, to me, is the second most telling delusion around these things, after seeing them as sentient.
@pikhq

Show threadMichael WestergaardMar 6
It absolutely does. It does not allow you to create the same way a developer does, but it allows creating anyway. Coding is a small part of software development: design and analysis is a much larger part for most projects, and while LLMs can be used to spar about that (to some more or less meaningful extent), you still need to do that.

Saying code made using an LLM isn't legitimate is just as meaningful as saying that code made using a high-level language is less legitimate than code made in assembler.
Show threadKat SMar 6

@michael @pikhq Sorry, but I'm not buying this argument.

"Coding is a small part of software development: design and analysis is a much larger part for most projects" - with this, I do agree.

However, if you sub out your coding to another person by saying "I need a chunk of code here, that fits these parameters," surely you wouldn't be making the same argument that you personally created it.
The difference is only that you're subbing out to a (deeply problematic in an impressive range of ways) software service. You still didn't create it; you commissioned it. It's just that you commissioned it from a mechanised service instead of from a person.

It's qualitatively not the same thing as writing code in a higher-level language, or even using a Lisp macro to generate the code for you. If it really were equivalent, then it would increase your level of skill over time, rather than causing it to atrophy.

I also didn't say anything about the resulting code being "legitimate," so I'm merely pointing that out as a straw man, and not otherwise engaging with it.

Show threadMichael WestergaardMar 6
I didn't mean the code being legitimate or not, but that making programs using an LLM can be a legitimate way of making programs.

Using an LLM definitely doesn't teach you programming. But it does increase your skill in making programs using LLMs. They are different skills that accomplish something similar.

Using a high-level language allows you to write programs without having to worry about register allocations, call conventions, or memory models. Many modern developers don't even know what a register is, what a call convention is, or the difference between a stack and a heap. But that is ok: the compiler takes care of that, and you're just delegating to it to take care of the details that don't matter at your level.

For non-developers, the LLM can serve some of the same roles. It can write the code they don't understand and they can create by describing it, just as your or I create programs by describing it in our programming language of choice. It's fair if you don't see describing the program to an LLM as creating, but I see it as creating just on another level. And I hate using LLMs for coding or when try pushing me to using it.

The comparison with a compiler is a little flawed. It should be a comparison between compilers in the 1960s: back then, compilers were pretty garbage and frequently made mistakes. The fact that compilers eventually became great and better than humans should not be taken as an argument that the same will happen for LLMs. But either does allow making programs at a higher abstraction level.
Show threadVincent SparksMar 7

@michael @KatS @pikhq

Vibe coding goes a step further than that, though. Not only do you not understand how the code gets from your editor to being executed, you don't understand the code itself. A programmer in a high level language can explain how the program they wrote works, predict its behavior in a case they didn't think of while writing it, and know exactly what they have to do to modify it to do something else. A vibe coder cannot do the last thing except by forwarding the request to their LLM and hoping it understands, and arguably cannot do the first two at all.

I disagree that what vibe coders do is creation for the same reason I disagree that what AI artists do is creation, and it largely boils down to the understanding of the work. A portrait artist knows how to draw a head and knows how to move the nose just a little to the left if they didn't get the shading quite right. An AI artist has to feed the image back into the generator, ask it to do that, and hope.

Show threadMichael WestergaardMar 7
I completely agree that somebody creating using an LLM doesn't understand the program and that is a problem in many cases. To expand on the wheelchair analogy, a wheelchair might be faster for going downhill, just as using an LLM might be faster for writing certain code. That still doesn't make it great to YOLO downhill in thick fog towards a busy road. And a wheelchair is still unable to go up stairs. There are absolutely places where LLMs are not appropriate and cannot do the task.

I would still argue that using them can be viewed as creating. Take for example the Youtube channel NeuralViz. They make videos using generative AI for videos, images, and voices. They are not claiming they created the images, video, and voice the way a painter or voice artist would, but they are IMO a writer and director, and impose a visual style on the creations. They are creating art – an entire world with mythos and many recurring characters – but at a different level.

Somebody using LLMs to create programs similarly work at another level. The problem is more that non-developers have a hard time telling the difference, and try using unqualified people armed with an LLM to replace developers where it is inappropriate. Those areas definitely including important logic and critical systems. I am on the fence about whether they can be used for writing GUIs – my experience says no, but people I respect find it works for them.

But it is still a delight to see people that before were not interested in software development creating programs or other automations because they find it fun. They do not claim to be developers, but are now able to make their half-wonky, low-risk ideas realized. If that's not creating, I don't know what is.
Show threadJohn MaxwellMar 7

@michael @KatS @AVincentInSpace @pikhq Correct. You do not know what creating is.

It is not taking the work of your slave and presenting it as your own. Even if the slave isn't human, and especially when it's bad at its work.

Show threadMichael WestergaardMar 7
That's an incredibly unnuanced take.

Is a photographer then also not creating since the camera is their slave and they need to use a paintbrush and canvas like a real creator? In fact, forget the paintbrush, use mud on cave walls like a real creator.

LLMs are just tools. You're anthropomorphizing them to a degree they do not deserve. A photographer is not a painter, but still creates at a different level.
Show threadJohn MaxwellMar 7
@michael @KatS @AVincentInSpace @pikhq Bullshit.
Show threadJohn MaxwellMar 7
@michael @KatS @AVincentInSpace @pikhq LLMs are a scam, and you're helping promote the scam.
Show threadJohn MaxwellMar 7
@michael @KatS @AVincentInSpace @pikhq Creativity consists of using tools, not issuing orders. The entire bullshit point of LLMs is the promise of just being able to issue orders.
Show threadJohn MaxwellMar 7

@michael @KatS @AVincentInSpace @pikhq LLMs are not tools. A tool is something to assist you in performing a task, not something to do your task for you.

They are the antithesis of tools. They are literally an attempt to create mechanical slaves.

Show threadVincent SparksMar 7
@michael @KatS @jmax @pikhq Photographers do not have a two thousand character maximum on the complexity of ideas they can express.
Show threadSome Kind Of GarfMar 7
@michael @KatS @pikhq Telling a random person off the street to "give me a chair" and getting a three legged thing that gives everyone within 5 meters splinters does not make you a carpenter.
Show threadMichael WestergaardMar 7
I'm pretty sure, I did not at any point call people using LLMs to create programs developers or programmers.
Show threadÆ.Mar 6

@michael By that logic, having an unpaid intern do all the coding for someone is also good.

That's basically what generative "AI" is doing, it just abstracts the unpaid labor away so you don't see it and you don't confront the exploitation you're participating in.

It's still stolen labor.

Show threadMichael WestergaardMar 6
That's a completely different discussion. I agree to some extent with this.
Show threadÆ.Mar 6
@michael it’s not though. You can’t look at generative “AI” without its externalities because those are inherent to it. If you do, you’re talking about a fictional technology, not anything that actually exists.
Show threadEmber is so tired of people. ​Mar 7

@michael @pikhq what's with slop likers feeling the need to comment under every single damn post speaking out against fashtech

STFU

Show threadNatalia OssipovaMar 6
@pikhq @jzilske Are you still programming in Assembly?
Show threadChris-EvelynMar 7
@nossipova @pikhq @jzilske I don‘t have to, because unlike LLMs, C-Compilers are sufficiently deterministic.
Show thread Ibly 🏳️‍⚧️ Mar 6
@pikhq ughhhh this all the way. i'm not in the professional realm... and frankly don't plan on doing so, because i like coding a lot. and the best way to ruin your appreciation for something is to have capitalism ruin it for you

i do coding explicitly because it's fun! it's for the same reason i draw art, i use it to craft things that i like! there's a lot of people out there that see programming and drawing as two seperate distinct things, like trying to mix oil in water. but i don't, because i both do programming and drawing
Show threadcrowMar 7
@pikhq mood
Show threadEmpathicQubitMar 7
@pikhq I don't disagree, but can you cw your complaining. I don't want to see it right now.
Show threadAda Worcester 🏳️‍⚧️Mar 7
@empathicqubit no, i will not heed the demands/complaints of someone who does not follow me, who i have no social relationship with, and who is replying on a post that got boosted nearly 200 times and hence went far outside of my usual audience, oh entitled random stranger
Show threadEmpathicQubitMar 7
@pikhq That tracks
Show threadfunbreakerMar 7
Mutes are free
Show threadtoerrorMar 7
@pikhq I was talking to a friend who has gone fully claude pilled the other day; He has to get a new job to look after his family, so I'm sympathetic to his embrace of the technology - looks like the only way to get a job right now.
What scares me beyond the changing technology is that we don't own this thing; In the past I've always known I can just work harder than everyone else out there and prove myself... What happens when I can't afford the tools anymore, when it's only viable as a job?
Show threadAntonio PatriarcaMar 7
@pikhq I am a software engineer. Writing code is not one of my favourite part of the job. However, I do care about the software I am producing. And that is the most surprising part of the vibe coding trend for me. Many people do not seem interested in understanding how/why things work in a certain way or making things easier for them and their colleagues. But tech management never really showed to care about it in my work life and rarely rewarded this kind of behaviour. In fact, programmers who would just follows any of the crazy tech trends of the moment would often be the one making more money. They would use stupid metrics as the number of pull requests (which actually promote superficial understandings and a lack of quality). So maybe we are just seeing people following what is rewarded to make the most money. They decided they care more about profit than a product no one care about.
Show threadMega Charizard XMar 7

@pikhq

They don't choose that option because those jobs pay less or require more hours.

Show threaddevoluteMar 7
@pikhq I'm going to miss everyone telling me that #CSS isn't programming, mind.
Show threadiamdtmsMar 7
@devolute @pikhq Okay. Do not want to talk about what make languages programming languages :) The web style language is now having if(), functions and variables at the 1st.
Show threaddevoluteMar 7
@iamdtms @pikhq Yeah. Stuff like this.
Show threadThe TurtleMar 7

@pikhq I used to. Then it got far, far too complicated for not much reason. It's no longer possible to just write code.

10 PRINT "I FARTED!!!!";chr$(7)
20 CLS
30 GOTO 10

Show threadthezerobitMar 7
@pikhq
I'm with you 100%. A lot of people are completely showing their asses. Using LLMs to launder stolen code is a clear sign of disdain for the practitioners and people who care about it, regardless if it is a hobby, job or both. To me, it is art, a hobby, and my job, and I'm not using LLMs to replace it in any context. I'm utterly disgusted by the practice honestly. It's all stolen human labor. An LLM has never crafted a single piece of original code, it's not possible.
Show threadThis Panda Eats PumpkinsMar 5

@pikhq

that's the thing tho

coding was always "just a job" to me, it's part of why I burned out

I do enjoy some minor coding as a hobby when I'm free to make actually good software I guess

but the strictures of professional dev do not allow you to make good software

my skills deteriorated because the stuff I wanted to learn to do my job better felt futile, because it would never be adopted, and I'm frankly not doing Java/Spring dev unless I'm getting paid for it

but I'm still not gonna hand-in fucking copilot slop because I have to have SOME self-respect

Show threadmookrakerMar 5
And less animosity toward your coworkers who'd have to figure out what the fuck that slop is making it do later, I suppose. (If I understand the situation correctly.)
Show threadSnowFoxMar 5

@annarcana @pikhq IME that depends on the company (namely the type of work/how expressive they let you be). That said, I found it helped to have personal projects that were exciting and completely unrelated to what I did at work.

AIUI one of the marketed features of Java (to management, not programmers/users) was to be able to treat programmers as interchangeable — sadly I don't have a citation, but it explains the lack of features like goto and operator overloading. With that in mind it's unsurprising that despite a decent amount of experience with Java for school/work don't find it enjoyable.

(On the flipside, people who do programming as "just a job" shouldn't be looked down on, but even if LLMs weren't unethical, LLM-generated code lacks the professionalism I'd expect.)

Show threadDie Welt istMar 7
@annarcana My plan was to let coding become just a job for me to avoid burn-out, so I'd stop caring/being less involved. This doesn't help? :(
Show threadThis Panda Eats PumpkinsMar 9
unfortunately, the necessary dissociation required to make that work proved incompatible with the level of thought required to perform the task, but without it, it becomes too painfully clear how horrible the entire industry is
Show threadaramyaMar 5
@pikhq I frankly don't understand it... it's really like how I was surprised to see people writing fanfictions with LLMs
Show threadVoidZeroOne   Mar 5
@pikhq just because you are good at something doesn't mean you like doing it plus, over time passion can fade.
People get jagged and cynical.
At the end if it's not your business why should you care?
Show threadAda Worcester 🏳️‍⚧️Mar 5
@TheOneDoc because they keep making me care, it's infected an entire industry, if i could just ignore it and do my own thing i would
Show threadVoidZeroOne   Mar 5
@pikhq don't get me wrong I'm completely on your side. I just answered the why 🤷🏻‍♀️
Show threadNothing MuchMar 5
@pikhq this is really unclear communication.
Show threadAda Worcester 🏳️‍⚧️Mar 5
@colinwilliamson1962 a thing you would no doubt know a lot about
Show threadNothing MuchMar 5
@pikhq yes. Reread your post. If you do not have your esoteric knowledge it is difficult to understand. It may be that you want to only communicate with the experts, but if you want to communicate with a wider audience some examples and insight would be useful.
Show threadAda Worcester 🏳️‍⚧️Mar 5
@colinwilliamson1962 you know, i was going to write something about how this was making me feel, how you are communicating poorly, you're just pissing me off, and all that. but then i remembered, you are a 3 follower account attempting to lecture me on the quality of communication of a post i wrote literally on the toilet that is getting more readers than you have ever had, and i had to simply laugh. even the idea's a farce -- good communication reaches an audience, and by that metric i seem to be the expert and you the novice
Show threadNothing MuchMar 6
@pikhq you are mistaken. I did not write the post with anyone else in mind, I am not seeking followers. I use my posts to let out my mundane, possibly insane and not original thoughts. I am indifferent and do not expect to gain any followers at all. I had been contemplating original now and realised that I had omitting something and it was probably appearing to be a harsh criticism. I was not, I was in a hurry and should have taken more time to compose. You, on the other hand seem to have taken
Show threadNothing MuchMar 6
@pikhq immediate offence and decided to be offensive. I would contend that having more followers is no indication of whether you a better communicator, it means you are more popular. Possibly. You are certainly more obnoxious, as evidenced by your contempt in telling me that you replied whilst you are on the toilet. And? Many messages from many people are born there. Ah. The point was to be offensive. My original message was not. I will take some of the blame, but you decided to take offence.