4 ms·

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 sys

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!

deleted 11mo ago
[deleted]
9rx 11mo ago
> You are trying to assert this equivalence to ultimately assert a similar equivalence between vibecoding and software engineering. I don't know what vibecoding is, but from past context and your arbitrary thoughts about about using natural language for writing software that came from out the blue, I am going to guess that you are referring to the aforementioned talk about criminal code. That is the only time we said anything about natural language previously. That should have been obviously seen as a tangent, but since it appears you didn't pick up on that, what do you think criminal code and software have to do with each other?
- wakawaka28 11mo ago
  There is no way you don't know what vibecoding is. I don't believe you. As we both know, the AI we are talking about uses natural language as input. To address the ridiculous connections you are trying to make, I am forced to distinguish natural languages from programming languages. You might like to overlook the vast differences between programming languages and natural languages to try to support your point. But those differences are major supporting details in my arguments. You can call this additional information "getting off on a tangent" to try to throw shade on me, but you're wrong. >what do you think criminal code and software have to do with each other? I'm not the one that brought this up, you did. I think that although criminal law is written in a largely procedural way, there are many differences between criminal law and writing software. I would not call a law maker a "software engineer" even though both are concerned with writing procedures of some kind. The critical distinctions are that law is written in natural language and is malleable according to social factors, regardless of what it literally says. Even if we build actual machines to enforce the law and programmed them in plain English or even a programming language built for it, interpretation of the law would still necessarily be subject to social factors. Those same differences between, say, law written in natural language and computer programs written in code, apply to practically all natural language input given to an AI or a software engineer versus actual code that a compiler or interpreter can process. Therefore, uninformed people who use AI to generate code are not "software developers" and the AI is not a "compiler". No natural language is a programming language. And now we have come full circle. No historical or logical rationale can justify redefining "software developer" or "software engineer" to include someone who has no knowledge of computer programming in the pre-AI sense.
  - 9rx 11mo ago
    > There is no way you don't know what vibecoding is. I'm old. I don't keep up with the kids. Maybe the kids have changed what a compiler is too. Is that the point of contention here? If so, that's pretty silly. When I write "compiler" it means what I mean it to mean, not what some arbitrary kid I've never met thinks it means. How can someone use a word in a way that they don't even know exists? > As we both know, the AI we are talking about uses natural language as input. That is not what I am talking about. Did you press the wrong reply button? That would explain your deep confusion.

deleted 11mo ago

[deleted]

9rx 11mo ago

> You are trying to assert this equivalence to ultimately assert a similar equivalence between vibecoding and software engineering. I don't know what vibecoding is, but from past context and your arbitrary thoughts about about using natural language for writing software that came from out the blue, I am going to guess that you are referring to the aforementioned talk about criminal code. That is the only time we said anything about natural language previously. That should have been obviously seen as a tangent, but since it appears you didn't pick up on that, what do you think criminal code and software have to do with each other?

wakawaka28 11mo ago
There is no way you don't know what vibecoding is. I don't believe you. As we both know, the AI we are talking about uses natural language as input. To address the ridiculous connections you are trying to make, I am forced to distinguish natural languages from programming languages. You might like to overlook the vast differences between programming languages and natural languages to try to support your point. But those differences are major supporting details in my arguments. You can call this additional information "getting off on a tangent" to try to throw shade on me, but you're wrong. >what do you think criminal code and software have to do with each other? I'm not the one that brought this up, you did. I think that although criminal law is written in a largely procedural way, there are many differences between criminal law and writing software. I would not call a law maker a "software engineer" even though both are concerned with writing procedures of some kind. The critical distinctions are that law is written in natural language and is malleable according to social factors, regardless of what it literally says. Even if we build actual machines to enforce the law and programmed them in plain English or even a programming language built for it, interpretation of the law would still necessarily be subject to social factors. Those same differences between, say, law written in natural language and computer programs written in code, apply to practically all natural language input given to an AI or a software engineer versus actual code that a compiler or interpreter can process. Therefore, uninformed people who use AI to generate code are not "software developers" and the AI is not a "compiler". No natural language is a programming language. And now we have come full circle. No historical or logical rationale can justify redefining "software developer" or "software engineer" to include someone who has no knowledge of computer programming in the pre-AI sense.
- 9rx 11mo ago
  > There is no way you don't know what vibecoding is. I'm old. I don't keep up with the kids. Maybe the kids have changed what a compiler is too. Is that the point of contention here? If so, that's pretty silly. When I write "compiler" it means what I mean it to mean, not what some arbitrary kid I've never met thinks it means. How can someone use a word in a way that they don't even know exists? > As we both know, the AI we are talking about uses natural language as input. That is not what I am talking about. Did you press the wrong reply button? That would explain your deep confusion.