3 ms·

You like having the painting, you just don't like to paint. You can think of a painting and have it appear before you. That's OK, but surely you can see how pa

by dlisboa 11mo ago

You like having the painting, you just don't like to paint. You can think of a painting and have it appear before you. That's OK, but surely you can see how painters wouldn't enjoy that in the slightest.

grim_io 11mo ago
You can still enjoy painting, but there is no guarantee that you will be paid for it.
brandall10 11mo ago
Historically, many master painters used teams of assistants/apprentices to do most of the work under their guidance, with them only stepping in to do actual painting in the final details. Similar with famous architects running large studios, mostly taking on a higher level conceptual role for any commissions they're involved in. Traditionally in software (20+ years ago) architects typically wouldn't code much outside of POC work, they just worked with systems engineers and generated a ton of UML to be disseminated. So if we go back to that type of role, it somewhat fits in with agentic software dev.
- gridspy 11mo ago
  Sure, but you currently cannot teach AI models to generate novel art in the same way that you can teach a human apprentice.
  - brandall10 11mo ago
    I was addressing the 'enjoyment' factor, when at the end of the day, esp. at scale, it's a job to produce something someone paid for.
    - dlisboa 11mo ago
      That's where we're at a marked disagreement. "It's just a way to get paid" reduces every human knowledge to a monetary transaction, so the value of any type of learning is only worth what is being paid for. Thankfully the people that came before us didn't see it that way otherwise we wouldn't even have anything to program on.
- jimbokun 11mo ago
  > they just worked with systems engineers and generated a ton of UML to be disseminated. So if we go back to that type of role, it somewhat fits in with agentic software dev. I've never met one of those UML slingers that added much value.
- jimbokun 11mo ago
  And how did the master painter learn his craft, without first having been an assistant or apprentice?

by dlisboa 11mo ago

grim_io 11mo ago

You can still enjoy painting, but there is no guarantee that you will be paid for it.

brandall10 11mo ago

Historically, many master painters used teams of assistants/apprentices to do most of the work under their guidance, with them only stepping in to do actual painting in the final details. Similar with famous architects running large studios, mostly taking on a higher level conceptual role for any commissions they're involved in. Traditionally in software (20+ years ago) architects typically wouldn't code much outside of POC work, they just worked with systems engineers and generated a ton of UML to be disseminated. So if we go back to that type of role, it somewhat fits in with agentic software dev.

gridspy 11mo ago
Sure, but you currently cannot teach AI models to generate novel art in the same way that you can teach a human apprentice.
- brandall10 11mo ago
  I was addressing the 'enjoyment' factor, when at the end of the day, esp. at scale, it's a job to produce something someone paid for.
  - dlisboa 11mo ago
    That's where we're at a marked disagreement. "It's just a way to get paid" reduces every human knowledge to a monetary transaction, so the value of any type of learning is only worth what is being paid for. Thankfully the people that came before us didn't see it that way otherwise we wouldn't even have anything to program on.
jimbokun 11mo ago
> they just worked with systems engineers and generated a ton of UML to be disseminated. So if we go back to that type of role, it somewhat fits in with agentic software dev. I've never met one of those UML slingers that added much value.
jimbokun 11mo ago
And how did the master painter learn his craft, without first having been an assistant or apprentice?