4 ms·

> If a compiler counts as AI then so does literally every other program out there (at least the ones with well-defined inputs and outputs). You seem to be miss

by 9rx 11mo ago

> If a compiler counts as AI then so does literally every other program out there (at least the ones with well-defined inputs and outputs). You seem to be missing some context. We were talking about a system that takes a typed description of what you want as input and outputs code. There is plenty of software, even with well-defined inputs and outputs, which do not do that. But there is a particular type of software that does exactly that. We call it a compiler in my circles. Maybe you do not in your circles, but it doesn't really matter as it was I who wrote "compiler". It was written to express my intent. Your (mis)interpretation does nothing to change my intent and is, frankly, irrelevant.

wakawaka28 11mo ago
>We were talking about a system that takes a typed description of what you want as input and outputs code. There is plenty of software, even with well-defined inputs and outputs, which do not do that. You are trying to assert an equivalence between compilers and AI systems that simply does not exist. Sure, you could abuse the English language to try to elevate "vibecoding" to the level of "software engineering", and denegrate the AI to the level of a basic compiler. But the rest of us know better and won't accept that. Your line of reasoning about historical job titles and roles also fails. >But there is a particular type of software that does exactly that. We call it a compiler in my circles. Compilers don't take "descriptions" as input. They take code as input. The output is perhaps a different kind of code, but it is still code. There has never really been a software engineer or developer who wrote only imprecise English. You don't legitimately get those titles without being competent at using some kind of programming language (as opposed to natural language). >It was written to express my intent. Your (mis)interpretation does nothing to change my intent and is, frankly, irrelevant. This is exactly why natural language is unsuitable for writing software. People like you constantly try to abuse the meaning of words to manipulate people. No amount of rhetoric is going to make a vibecoder actually be a software developer or software engineer. Even if you get people to debase the English language, they'll be forced to come up with new words to describe what they actually mean when they speak of morons using AI vs people who actually know what they are doing. I hate how much time is wasted in arguments over what is a reasonable use of words and why it is not good to constantly change the meanings of words. I'm done with this conversation. I think you're just trolling us at this point. I've made my point and I'm done beating a dead horse.
- 9rx 11mo ago
  > You are trying to assert an equivalence between compilers and AI systems that simply does not exist. The equivalence is between typing out what you want and having a machine produce code from that and compilers. Call that "AI systems" instead of "compilers" if you want, but "AI systems" lacks precision, so I think we can eventually come to agree that compiler is more precise. Even if we don't, it is what I chose to call it. Therefore, that's what it means in the context of my comments. That is how English works. I am surprised this is news to you. > I'm done with this conversation. I know you like silly semantic debates, so is talking past everyone really a conversation? The dictionary definition indicates that there needs to be an exchange, not just taking turns writing out gobbledygook.
  - wakawaka28 11mo ago
    You can't just leave it, huh? >The equivalence is between typing out what you want and having a machine produce code from that and compilers. Call that "AI systems" instead of "compilers" if you want, but "AI systems" lacks precision, so I think we can eventually come to agree that compiler is more precise. You are trying to assert this equivalence to ultimately assert a similar equivalence between vibecoding and software engineering. I'm not going to accept that. The analogy is about as bizarre as calling a compiler a search program. You could indeed call it that: You tell it what you are looking for, and it does something to find the matching output out of infinitely many possible outputs. But this is just as strained of an analogy. The mechanics of how each of these things works is sufficiently complex and distinct as to deserve dedicated terminology. Nothing is gained by drawing these connections, that is unless you are going to commit fraud. >Even if we don't, it is what I chose to call it. Therefore, that's what it means in the context of my comments. That is how English works. I am surprised this is news to you. It is not. I said it works that way in multiple comments to you. This type of shit is, as I said, exactly why natural language is a bad category of input for writing software. >I know you like silly semantic debates, so is talking past everyone really a conversation? The dictionary definition indicates that there needs to be an exchange, not just taking turns writing out gobbledygook. First you want to manipulate the definition of "software developer" to elevate vibecoding (the socially and industrially acceptable definition) to the same level. When I disagree with you in a series of comments, you want to redefine "conversation" to mean something else and also call my thoroughly explained rationale "gobbledygook". What you're writing isn't exactly gobbledygook, though I could easily call it that and move on. What it is is simply an incorrect argument in favor of destroying the meanings of certain well-established words. You are simply wrong from multiple angles: historical, logical, and social. We are all dumber for having heard it. You LOSE!

by 9rx 11mo ago

wakawaka28 11mo ago

>We were talking about a system that takes a typed description of what you want as input and outputs code. There is plenty of software, even with well-defined inputs and outputs, which do not do that. You are trying to assert an equivalence between compilers and AI systems that simply does not exist. Sure, you could abuse the English language to try to elevate "vibecoding" to the level of "software engineering", and denegrate the AI to the level of a basic compiler. But the rest of us know better and won't accept that. Your line of reasoning about historical job titles and roles also fails. >But there is a particular type of software that does exactly that. We call it a compiler in my circles. Compilers don't take "descriptions" as input. They take code as input. The output is perhaps a different kind of code, but it is still code. There has never really been a software engineer or developer who wrote only imprecise English. You don't legitimately get those titles without being competent at using some kind of programming language (as opposed to natural language). >It was written to express my intent. Your (mis)interpretation does nothing to change my intent and is, frankly, irrelevant. This is exactly why natural language is unsuitable for writing software. People like you constantly try to abuse the meaning of words to manipulate people. No amount of rhetoric is going to make a vibecoder actually be a software developer or software engineer. Even if you get people to debase the English language, they'll be forced to come up with new words to describe what they actually mean when they speak of morons using AI vs people who actually know what they are doing. I hate how much time is wasted in arguments over what is a reasonable use of words and why it is not good to constantly change the meanings of words. I'm done with this conversation. I think you're just trolling us at this point. I've made my point and I'm done beating a dead horse.

9rx 11mo ago
> You are trying to assert an equivalence between compilers and AI systems that simply does not exist. The equivalence is between typing out what you want and having a machine produce code from that and compilers. Call that "AI systems" instead of "compilers" if you want, but "AI systems" lacks precision, so I think we can eventually come to agree that compiler is more precise. Even if we don't, it is what I chose to call it. Therefore, that's what it means in the context of my comments. That is how English works. I am surprised this is news to you. > I'm done with this conversation. I know you like silly semantic debates, so is talking past everyone really a conversation? The dictionary definition indicates that there needs to be an exchange, not just taking turns writing out gobbledygook.
- wakawaka28 11mo ago
  You can't just leave it, huh? >The equivalence is between typing out what you want and having a machine produce code from that and compilers. Call that "AI systems" instead of "compilers" if you want, but "AI systems" lacks precision, so I think we can eventually come to agree that compiler is more precise. You are trying to assert this equivalence to ultimately assert a similar equivalence between vibecoding and software engineering. I'm not going to accept that. The analogy is about as bizarre as calling a compiler a search program. You could indeed call it that: You tell it what you are looking for, and it does something to find the matching output out of infinitely many possible outputs. But this is just as strained of an analogy. The mechanics of how each of these things works is sufficiently complex and distinct as to deserve dedicated terminology. Nothing is gained by drawing these connections, that is unless you are going to commit fraud. >Even if we don't, it is what I chose to call it. Therefore, that's what it means in the context of my comments. That is how English works. I am surprised this is news to you. It is not. I said it works that way in multiple comments to you. This type of shit is, as I said, exactly why natural language is a bad category of input for writing software. >I know you like silly semantic debates, so is talking past everyone really a conversation? The dictionary definition indicates that there needs to be an exchange, not just taking turns writing out gobbledygook. First you want to manipulate the definition of "software developer" to elevate vibecoding (the socially and industrially acceptable definition) to the same level. When I disagree with you in a series of comments, you want to redefine "conversation" to mean something else and also call my thoroughly explained rationale "gobbledygook". What you're writing isn't exactly gobbledygook, though I could easily call it that and move on. What it is is simply an incorrect argument in favor of destroying the meanings of certain well-established words. You are simply wrong from multiple angles: historical, logical, and social. We are all dumber for having heard it. You LOSE!