3 ms·

> In fact, the closest parallel for #2 I can think of us plagiarism in an academic setting. You didn't do the work, which means you didn't actually learn the ma

> In fact, the closest parallel for #2 I can think of us plagiarism in an academic setting. You didn't do the work, which means you didn't actually learn the material, which means this isn't actually progress (assuming we continue to value #2 (...) Plagiarism is a great analogy. It's great because what we call plagiarism in academic setting, in the real world work we call collaboration, cooperation, standing on the shoulders of giants, not reinventing the wheel, getting shit done, and such. So the question really is how much we value #2? Or, which aspects of it we value, because I see at least two: A) "I'm getting better as a programmer" B) "I'm getting better as a someone who understands our system" As much as I hate it, the brutal truth is, you and me are not being paid for A). The business doesn't care, and they only get so much value out of it anyway. As for B), it's tricky to say whether and when we should care - most software is throwaway, and the only thing that happens faster than that is programmers working on it changing jobs. Long-term, B) has very little value; short-term, it might benefit both business and the programmer (the latter by virtue of making the job more pleasant). I think the jury is still out on how LLMs affect A). I feel that it's not making me dumber as a programmer, but I'm from the cohort of people with more than a decade of programming experience before even touching a language model, so I have a different style of working with LLMs than people who started using them with less experience, or people who never learned to code without them.

GoblinSlayer 2y ago
>most software is throwaway That's only webdev and games.
- miroljub 2y ago
  ... and that's already most software.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- nyarlathotep_ 2y ago
  Which games? I'd argue this isn't true for AAA games, where you see major firms milking the big releases for a decade in some cases--3 versions of the Last of Us, GTA V just had a "enhanced" patch thing on PC etc.
  - lupusreal 2y ago
    Most AAA games get thrown away. Only a minority are maintained and milked for years.
c-linkage 2y ago
The CTO asked the CEO what happens if we train these people and they decide to leave? The CEO asked in reply what happens if we don't train the people and they decide to stay? Any reasonably smart company will invest in its employees. They should absolutely be training you to be better programmers while you are on the job. Only shit companies would refuse to do so.
- TeMPOraL 2y ago
  > Any reasonably smart company will invest in its employees. They should absolutely be training you to be better programmers while you are on the job. Only shit companies would refuse to do so. That's true, but by the same token, it's also true the world is mostly made of shit companies. Companies are just following local gradient they perceive. Some can afford to train people - mostly ones without much competition (and/or big enough to have a buffer against competitors and market fluctuations). Most can't (or at least think they can't), and so don't. There's a saying attributed to the late founder of an IT corporation in my country - "any specialist can be replaced by a finite amount of students". This may not be true in a useful fashion[0], but the sentiment feels accurate. The market seems to be showing that for most of the industry, fresh junior coders are at the equilibrium: skilled enough to do the job[1], plentiful enough to be cheap to hire - cheap enough that it makes more sense to push seniors away from coding and towards management (er, "mentoring new juniors"). In short, for the past decade or more, the market was strongly suggesting that it's cheaper to perpetually hire and replace juniors than to train up and retain expertise. -- [0] - However, with LLMs getting better than students, this has an interesting and more worrying corollary: "any specialist can be replaced by a finite amount of LLM spend". [1] - However shitty. But, as I said, most software is throwaway. Self-reinforcing loop? Probably. But it is what it is.
  - GTP 2y ago
    This reminds me of a quote from dr. House. In one of the episodes with the smart girl that also studied mathematics (I don't remember her name), Cuddy said something like "You will figure this out, the sum of your IQs is over X". To which House replied, "The same applies to a group of four stupid people". Sometimes knowledge and experience aren't additive: if none of the students had a certain experience/knows a certain fact, the sum of the students will still not have that experience or not know the fact.
yakcyll 2y ago
> It's great because what we call plagiarism in academic setting, in the real world work we call collaboration, cooperation, standing on the shoulders of giants, not reinventing the wheel, getting shit done, and such. That is absolutely not true. A much closer analogue of industry collaboration in the academic setting would be cross-university programs and peer review. The actual analogue of plagiarism is taking work of another and regurgitating it with small or no changes at all while not providing any sources. I'm sure you see what this sounds more akin to.
barrkel 2y ago
You're half right. Reuse is one half of plagiarism. But it's not the crucial thing which gives meaning to the word: lack of attribution and passing it off as your own. This is the moral wrong. It would be wrong in a work context too, taking credit for the work of others.
aleph_minus_one 2y ago
> Plagiarism is a great analogy. It's great because what we call plagiarism in academic setting, in the real world work we call collaboration, cooperation, standing on the shoulders of giants, not reinventing the wheel, getting shit done, and such. In academia, if a result is quoted, this is called called "scholarship". If, on the other hand, you simply copy-paste something without giving a proper reference, it's "plagiarism".

GoblinSlayer 2y ago

>most software is throwaway That's only webdev and games.

miroljub 2y ago
... and that's already most software.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
nyarlathotep_ 2y ago
Which games? I'd argue this isn't true for AAA games, where you see major firms milking the big releases for a decade in some cases--3 versions of the Last of Us, GTA V just had a "enhanced" patch thing on PC etc.
- lupusreal 2y ago
  Most AAA games get thrown away. Only a minority are maintained and milked for years.

c-linkage 2y ago

The CTO asked the CEO what happens if we train these people and they decide to leave? The CEO asked in reply what happens if we don't train the people and they decide to stay? Any reasonably smart company will invest in its employees. They should absolutely be training you to be better programmers while you are on the job. Only shit companies would refuse to do so.

TeMPOraL 2y ago
> Any reasonably smart company will invest in its employees. They should absolutely be training you to be better programmers while you are on the job. Only shit companies would refuse to do so. That's true, but by the same token, it's also true the world is mostly made of shit companies. Companies are just following local gradient they perceive. Some can afford to train people - mostly ones without much competition (and/or big enough to have a buffer against competitors and market fluctuations). Most can't (or at least think they can't), and so don't. There's a saying attributed to the late founder of an IT corporation in my country - "any specialist can be replaced by a finite amount of students". This may not be true in a useful fashion[0], but the sentiment feels accurate. The market seems to be showing that for most of the industry, fresh junior coders are at the equilibrium: skilled enough to do the job[1], plentiful enough to be cheap to hire - cheap enough that it makes more sense to push seniors away from coding and towards management (er, "mentoring new juniors"). In short, for the past decade or more, the market was strongly suggesting that it's cheaper to perpetually hire and replace juniors than to train up and retain expertise. -- [0] - However, with LLMs getting better than students, this has an interesting and more worrying corollary: "any specialist can be replaced by a finite amount of LLM spend". [1] - However shitty. But, as I said, most software is throwaway. Self-reinforcing loop? Probably. But it is what it is.
- GTP 2y ago
  This reminds me of a quote from dr. House. In one of the episodes with the smart girl that also studied mathematics (I don't remember her name), Cuddy said something like "You will figure this out, the sum of your IQs is over X". To which House replied, "The same applies to a group of four stupid people". Sometimes knowledge and experience aren't additive: if none of the students had a certain experience/knows a certain fact, the sum of the students will still not have that experience or not know the fact.

yakcyll 2y ago

> It's great because what we call plagiarism in academic setting, in the real world work we call collaboration, cooperation, standing on the shoulders of giants, not reinventing the wheel, getting shit done, and such. That is absolutely not true. A much closer analogue of industry collaboration in the academic setting would be cross-university programs and peer review. The actual analogue of plagiarism is taking work of another and regurgitating it with small or no changes at all while not providing any sources. I'm sure you see what this sounds more akin to.

barrkel 2y ago

You're half right. Reuse is one half of plagiarism. But it's not the crucial thing which gives meaning to the word: lack of attribution and passing it off as your own. This is the moral wrong. It would be wrong in a work context too, taking credit for the work of others.

aleph_minus_one 2y ago

> Plagiarism is a great analogy. It's great because what we call plagiarism in academic setting, in the real world work we call collaboration, cooperation, standing on the shoulders of giants, not reinventing the wheel, getting shit done, and such. In academia, if a result is quoted, this is called called "scholarship". If, on the other hand, you simply copy-paste something without giving a proper reference, it's "plagiarism".