3 ms·

>Hi. I was being dismissively rhetorical. I can actually imagine them because we see them on HN constantly, with a Luddism that somehow actually becomes a rath

>Hi. I was being dismissively rhetorical. I can actually imagine them because we see them on HN constantly, with a Luddism that somehow actually becomes a rather hilarious attempt at superiority. A "well if you actually get use out of them, I guess you're just not at my superior level of Unique Projects and Unique Code". It's honestly just embarrassing at this point. >but bluntly put, the code I work on day to day is far, far too interesting to be handled by copilot Hilarious. It's a cliche at this point. Let me take it further and turn this on its head: The people who usually think LLMs aren't valuable to coders generally work on the most boring, copy/paste prattle. They stick to the same tiny niche all day every day. They're basically implementing the same thing again and again. It's so rote, and they're so profoundly unchallenged, that tooling has no value.

Clubber 2y ago
>with a Luddism that somehow actually becomes a rather hilarious attempt at superiority >The people who usually think LLMs aren't valuable to coders generally work on the most boring, copy/paste prattle. Here you are doing the same thing, aren't you? Instead of calling people names, the biggest tell of a weak argument, why don't you explain the type of work you do and how using an LLM is faster than if you coded it yourself and and/or also faster than any current way of doing the same thing. I'm assuming you are a senior+ level coder.
- llm_nerd 2y ago
  But...I'm not doing the same thing. In actuality I'm saying I'm a fairly typical programmer in a common situation: I work across a variety of languages and platforms and toolings and projects, building solutions for problems. The truth is that extraordinarily few programmers are working on anything truly novel. Zero of the readers of this comment are, in all likelihood. The ridiculous notion that someone has so unique of a need that it hasn't been seen is kind of hilarious nonsense. It's the "I'm so random! Other girls aren't like me" bit. >Instead of calling people names Who called anyone a name? Luddism? Yes, many HN participants are reacting to AI in a completely common rejection of change / challenge, and it recurs constantly. >how using an LLM is faster than if you coded it yourself I am coding it myself. Similar to the other guy who talks about putting an LLM in "charge" of his precious, super-novel code, you're setting up a strawman where using an LLM implies some particular scenario that you envision. In reality I spend my day asking questions, getting broad strokes, getting code commented, asking for API or resources, etc.
  - ToucanLoucan 2y ago
    > Who called anyone a name? Luddism? Yes, many HN participants are reacting to AI in a completely common rejection of change / challenge, and it recurs constantly. You should read up on what Luddism and Luddists were actually about. They didn't think the machines were evil or satanic, which is the common cultural read. They assumed (correctly) that the managerial class would take full advantage of increased productivity of lower-quality goods to flood the market with cheap shit that would put competitors out of business, and let them fire 4/5 of their workforces while doing so. And considering the state of the textile industry today, I think that was a pretty solid set of projections. Luddites didn't oppose automation on the basis that machines are scary. They were the people who worked the machines that already existed at the time, after all. They opposed them on the basis that the greedy bastards who owned everything would be the only ones actually benefiting from automation, everyone else would get one kind of shaft or another, which again: is exactly what happened. This, actually is incredibly analogous to my opinions about LLM. It's an interesting tech that has applications but is already being situated to be the sole domain of massive hyperscalers and subject to every ounce of enshittification that follows every tech that goes that way, while putting creatives, and yes some coders, out of a job. So yes, it was name calling, but also I don't object to the association. In this case, I'm a Luddite. I am suspicious of the motivations and the beneficiaries of automation being forced into my industry and I'm not going to be quiet about it.
    - Clubber 2y ago
      >And considering the state of the textile industry today, I think that was a pretty solid set of projections. I think it's just about all industries these days. Yes, so many quote meanings have been malformed over the years, such as "a rolling stone gathers no moss," is considered good, while originally bad. "Blood is thicker than water," "Money is the root of all evil," etc. The Luddites were right.
    - llm_nerd 2y ago
      >You should read up on what Luddism and Luddists were actually about. They were primarily opposed to automation because it devalued the work they did and the skills they held. That is the core essence of Luddism. They thought if they destroyed the machines, automation could be stopped. There were some post-facto justifications like product quality, but if that was true they'd have no problem out-competing the machines. Yes, it is Luddism that drives a lot of the AI sentiment seen on HN, and it is not only utterly futile and basically people convincing themselves and each other while the world moves on. There is no "name calling", and that particular blend of pearl clutching is absurd.
ToucanLoucan 2y ago
That was a whole lotta words to say "Nuh uh." and as such I don't really have a response.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

Clubber 2y ago

>with a Luddism that somehow actually becomes a rather hilarious attempt at superiority >The people who usually think LLMs aren't valuable to coders generally work on the most boring, copy/paste prattle. Here you are doing the same thing, aren't you? Instead of calling people names, the biggest tell of a weak argument, why don't you explain the type of work you do and how using an LLM is faster than if you coded it yourself and and/or also faster than any current way of doing the same thing. I'm assuming you are a senior+ level coder.

llm_nerd 2y ago
But...I'm not doing the same thing. In actuality I'm saying I'm a fairly typical programmer in a common situation: I work across a variety of languages and platforms and toolings and projects, building solutions for problems. The truth is that extraordinarily few programmers are working on anything truly novel. Zero of the readers of this comment are, in all likelihood. The ridiculous notion that someone has so unique of a need that it hasn't been seen is kind of hilarious nonsense. It's the "I'm so random! Other girls aren't like me" bit. >Instead of calling people names Who called anyone a name? Luddism? Yes, many HN participants are reacting to AI in a completely common rejection of change / challenge, and it recurs constantly. >how using an LLM is faster than if you coded it yourself I am coding it myself. Similar to the other guy who talks about putting an LLM in "charge" of his precious, super-novel code, you're setting up a strawman where using an LLM implies some particular scenario that you envision. In reality I spend my day asking questions, getting broad strokes, getting code commented, asking for API or resources, etc.
- ToucanLoucan 2y ago
  > Who called anyone a name? Luddism? Yes, many HN participants are reacting to AI in a completely common rejection of change / challenge, and it recurs constantly. You should read up on what Luddism and Luddists were actually about. They didn't think the machines were evil or satanic, which is the common cultural read. They assumed (correctly) that the managerial class would take full advantage of increased productivity of lower-quality goods to flood the market with cheap shit that would put competitors out of business, and let them fire 4/5 of their workforces while doing so. And considering the state of the textile industry today, I think that was a pretty solid set of projections. Luddites didn't oppose automation on the basis that machines are scary. They were the people who worked the machines that already existed at the time, after all. They opposed them on the basis that the greedy bastards who owned everything would be the only ones actually benefiting from automation, everyone else would get one kind of shaft or another, which again: is exactly what happened. This, actually is incredibly analogous to my opinions about LLM. It's an interesting tech that has applications but is already being situated to be the sole domain of massive hyperscalers and subject to every ounce of enshittification that follows every tech that goes that way, while putting creatives, and yes some coders, out of a job. So yes, it was name calling, but also I don't object to the association. In this case, I'm a Luddite. I am suspicious of the motivations and the beneficiaries of automation being forced into my industry and I'm not going to be quiet about it.
  - Clubber 2y ago
    >And considering the state of the textile industry today, I think that was a pretty solid set of projections. I think it's just about all industries these days. Yes, so many quote meanings have been malformed over the years, such as "a rolling stone gathers no moss," is considered good, while originally bad. "Blood is thicker than water," "Money is the root of all evil," etc. The Luddites were right.
  - llm_nerd 2y ago
    >You should read up on what Luddism and Luddists were actually about. They were primarily opposed to automation because it devalued the work they did and the skills they held. That is the core essence of Luddism. They thought if they destroyed the machines, automation could be stopped. There were some post-facto justifications like product quality, but if that was true they'd have no problem out-competing the machines. Yes, it is Luddism that drives a lot of the AI sentiment seen on HN, and it is not only utterly futile and basically people convincing themselves and each other while the world moves on. There is no "name calling", and that particular blend of pearl clutching is absurd.

ToucanLoucan 2y ago

That was a whole lotta words to say "Nuh uh." and as such I don't really have a response.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]