4 ms·

This 1000x! I had a bit of an identity crisis with AI first landed and started producing good code. “If I’m not the man who can type quickly, accurately, and b

This 1000x! I had a bit of an identity crisis with AI first landed and started producing good code. “If I’m not the man who can type quickly, accurately, and build working programs… WHO AM I?” But as you pointed out, I quickly realized I was never that guy. I was the guy who made problems go away, usually with code. Now I can make so many problems go away, it feels like cheating. As it turns out, writing code isn’t super useful. It’s the application of the code, the judgement of which problems to solve and how to solve them, that truly mattered. And that sparks a LOT of joy.

spankibalt 9mo ago
[flagged]
- jimbokun 9mo ago
  It’s possible to be someone who’s very good at writing quality programs but still enjoy delegating as much of that as possible to AI to focus on other things.
  - spankibalt 9mo ago
    > "It’s possible to be someone who’s very good at writing quality programs but still enjoy delegating as much of that as possible to AI to focus on other things." That's true, Jimbo. And besides the point, because: 1. It wasn't about someone who's very good at writing quality programs, but someone who perceives themselves as someone who "is not the man who can build working programs". Do you comprehend the difference? 2. The enjoyment of using slopware wasn't part of the argument (see my answer to the question). That's not something I remotely care about. For the question my answer referred to, please see the cited text before the question mark. <3 3. People who define the very solution to the problem as "isn't super useful" do at least two things: They misunderstood, or misunderstand, their capabilities in problem solving/solutions, and most likely (have) delude(d) themselves, and... They look down on people who actually have done, do, and will do the legwork to solve these very problems ("Your work isn't super useful"). Back in the day we called 'em lamers and/or posers. I hope that clears things up.
    - cthalupa 9mo ago
      > 1. It wasn't about someone who's very good at writing quality programs, but someone who perceives themselves as someone who "is not the man who can build working programs". Do you comprehend the difference? For someone who has taken heavy enjoyment in likening people to analphabets you seem to have entirely misunderstood (or if you understood, heavily misconstrued) the initial point of the person you are responding to. The entire point is that their identity WAS someone who is the man who can build those programs, and now AI was threatening to do the same thing. Unless you a presupposing that anyone who can be happy with the output of LLMs for writing code simply is impossible of having the ability to write quality code themselves. Which would be silly.
- jtbayly 9mo ago
  You definitely completely misconstrued what was said and meant. It appears you have yet to grapple with the question asked. And I suspect you would be helped by doing so. Let me restate the question for you: If actually writing code can be done without you or any coworker now, by AI, what is your purpose?
  - deleted 9mo ago
    [deleted]
- ch4s3 9mo ago
  Anyone who can’t read Proust and write a compelling essay about the themes is illiterate!
  - spankibalt 9mo ago
    One day you actually might discover there's different levels of literacy. Like there's something between 0 and 255! Here's a pointer: Not being able to read (terminus technicus: analphabet) makes you a non-reader, just as not being able to cobble together a working proggie on your own merits makes you a non-coder. Man alive...
    - ch4s3 9mo ago
      That’s quite literally my point.
      - spankibalt 9mo ago
        [flagged]
        ch4s3 9mo ago
        what do you think I meant?
- ragequittah 9mo ago
  I imagine this same argument happening when people stopped using machine code and assembly en masse and started using FORTRAN or COBOL. You don't really know what you're doing unless you're spending the effort I spent!
  - spankibalt 9mo ago
    > "I imagine this same argument happening when people stopped using machine code and assembly en masse and started using FORTRAN or COBOL." Yeah, certainly. But since this has nothing to do with my argument, which was an answer to the very existential question of a (postulated) non-coder, and not a comment on a forgotten pissing contest between coders, it's utterly irrelevant. :(
    - framapotari 9mo ago
      This is quite funny when you created the pissing contest between "coders" and "non-coders" in this thread. Those labels seem very important to you.
      - spankibalt 9mo ago
        I didn't "create" the pissing contest, I merely pointed it out in someone else's drivel. And of course, these labels are important to me for (precise) language defines the boundaries of my world; coder vs. non-coder, medico vs. quack, writer vs. analphabet, truth vs. lie, etc. Elementary.
        cthalupa 9mo ago
        I find it quite interesting that you categorize non-coders the same as quacks, analphabets, and lies. I would never consider myself a coder - though I can and have written quite a lot of code over the years - because it has always been a means to the ends for me. I don't particularly enjoy writing code. Programming isn't a passion. I can and have built working programs without a line of copy and pasted code off stack overflow or using an LLM. Because I needed to to solve a problem. But there are things I would call myself, things I do and enjoy and am good at. But I wouldn't position people who can't do those things as being the same as a quack. You also claim to not be the one that started the pissing contest, but you called someone who claims to have written plenty of code themselves a coding-illiterate just because now they'd rather use an LLM than do it themselves. I suppose you could claim they are lying about it, or some no true scottsman type argument, but that seems silly. You basically took some people talking about their own opinions on what they find enjoyable, and saying that AI-driven coding scratches that itch for them even more than writing code itself does, and then began to be quite hostile towards them with boatloads of denigrating language and derision.

spankibalt 9mo ago

[flagged]

jimbokun 9mo ago
It’s possible to be someone who’s very good at writing quality programs but still enjoy delegating as much of that as possible to AI to focus on other things.
- spankibalt 9mo ago
  > "It’s possible to be someone who’s very good at writing quality programs but still enjoy delegating as much of that as possible to AI to focus on other things." That's true, Jimbo. And besides the point, because: 1. It wasn't about someone who's very good at writing quality programs, but someone who perceives themselves as someone who "is not the man who can build working programs". Do you comprehend the difference? 2. The enjoyment of using slopware wasn't part of the argument (see my answer to the question). That's not something I remotely care about. For the question my answer referred to, please see the cited text before the question mark. <3 3. People who define the very solution to the problem as "isn't super useful" do at least two things: They misunderstood, or misunderstand, their capabilities in problem solving/solutions, and most likely (have) delude(d) themselves, and... They look down on people who actually have done, do, and will do the legwork to solve these very problems ("Your work isn't super useful"). Back in the day we called 'em lamers and/or posers. I hope that clears things up.
  - cthalupa 9mo ago
    > 1. It wasn't about someone who's very good at writing quality programs, but someone who perceives themselves as someone who "is not the man who can build working programs". Do you comprehend the difference? For someone who has taken heavy enjoyment in likening people to analphabets you seem to have entirely misunderstood (or if you understood, heavily misconstrued) the initial point of the person you are responding to. The entire point is that their identity WAS someone who is the man who can build those programs, and now AI was threatening to do the same thing. Unless you a presupposing that anyone who can be happy with the output of LLMs for writing code simply is impossible of having the ability to write quality code themselves. Which would be silly.
jtbayly 9mo ago
You definitely completely misconstrued what was said and meant. It appears you have yet to grapple with the question asked. And I suspect you would be helped by doing so. Let me restate the question for you: If actually writing code can be done without you or any coworker now, by AI, what is your purpose?
- deleted 9mo ago
  [deleted]
ch4s3 9mo ago
Anyone who can’t read Proust and write a compelling essay about the themes is illiterate!
- spankibalt 9mo ago
  One day you actually might discover there's different levels of literacy. Like there's something between 0 and 255! Here's a pointer: Not being able to read (terminus technicus: analphabet) makes you a non-reader, just as not being able to cobble together a working proggie on your own merits makes you a non-coder. Man alive...
  - ch4s3 9mo ago
    That’s quite literally my point.
    - spankibalt 9mo ago
      [flagged]
      - ch4s3 9mo ago
        what do you think I meant?
ragequittah 9mo ago
I imagine this same argument happening when people stopped using machine code and assembly en masse and started using FORTRAN or COBOL. You don't really know what you're doing unless you're spending the effort I spent!
- spankibalt 9mo ago
  > "I imagine this same argument happening when people stopped using machine code and assembly en masse and started using FORTRAN or COBOL." Yeah, certainly. But since this has nothing to do with my argument, which was an answer to the very existential question of a (postulated) non-coder, and not a comment on a forgotten pissing contest between coders, it's utterly irrelevant. :(
  - framapotari 9mo ago
    This is quite funny when you created the pissing contest between "coders" and "non-coders" in this thread. Those labels seem very important to you.
    - spankibalt 9mo ago
      I didn't "create" the pissing contest, I merely pointed it out in someone else's drivel. And of course, these labels are important to me for (precise) language defines the boundaries of my world; coder vs. non-coder, medico vs. quack, writer vs. analphabet, truth vs. lie, etc. Elementary.
      - cthalupa 9mo ago
        I find it quite interesting that you categorize non-coders the same as quacks, analphabets, and lies. I would never consider myself a coder - though I can and have written quite a lot of code over the years - because it has always been a means to the ends for me. I don't particularly enjoy writing code. Programming isn't a passion. I can and have built working programs without a line of copy and pasted code off stack overflow or using an LLM. Because I needed to to solve a problem. But there are things I would call myself, things I do and enjoy and am good at. But I wouldn't position people who can't do those things as being the same as a quack. You also claim to not be the one that started the pissing contest, but you called someone who claims to have written plenty of code themselves a coding-illiterate just because now they'd rather use an LLM than do it themselves. I suppose you could claim they are lying about it, or some no true scottsman type argument, but that seems silly. You basically took some people talking about their own opinions on what they find enjoyable, and saying that AI-driven coding scratches that itch for them even more than writing code itself does, and then began to be quite hostile towards them with boatloads of denigrating language and derision.