4 ms·

I think it all depends on your personal driver: personally I rather see a product I built in whatever way used by ever growing number of people because they fin

I think it all depends on your personal driver: personally I rather see a product I built in whatever way used by ever growing number of people because they find it useful. It means that the time I spent working on that helped other people solving a problem (hopefully). That’s why a was always keen on cutting some corners when and where necessary in order to think about the user first and the code beauty second. Of course I appreciate well structured and maintainable code but you can always strike a balance, even with LLMs assisted coding sessions.

hdjrudni 3mo ago
I don't even want to put 'my' code or apps out into the wild anymore. I've built a a few things I think are useful and I'm using myself but I'm afraid it'll just get called slop or my only users will be bots. What's the point. So I don't get the joy out of sharing it nor the joy of the achievement. But I've widdled down what I thought was an endless backlog of features to nearly zero, I guess that's something.
- Schlagbohrer 3mo ago
  Github's weekly Top Trending repos list is depressing. Slop on top of slop, many doing the exact same thing as each other with so much low-quality content it's challenging to read through and compare similar repos.
- encyclopedism 3mo ago
  If it's code built by an LLM it's almost inherently uninteresting in that 'anyone' can also generate the same slop. Beyond the initial novelty the 'achievement' really doesn't stretch that far. Your slop, my slop, their slop it's all 'slop' and no one can really care about slop. The novelty is wearing thin fast
  - deaux 3mo ago
    Of course not, this makes no sense. It's the opposite, most of LLM generated apps are indeed uninteresting, yet it's not inherent at all. Most photos, most drawings, most human-written articles are uninteresting and have been so since forever. Nothing about that is inherent. And in the exact same manner, no, others can't generate the same thing. They physically can, but that has never been a barrier. If I make uninteresting art, it's not because I physically lack the ability to use my hands in a manner that would create interesting art. It's because I can't come up with the ideas, and lack the taste, to produce interesting art.
    - encyclopedism 3mo ago
      I think you missed my point I'm not denying the code does not produce a function of effect. The code however is uninteresting because almost anyone can also generate it. I'm interested in the source code to Quake but not in the source code to an LLM generated Quake equivalent, I love to hear about the Fast Inverse Square Root formula in Quake that Id software wrote but I'm unmoved by the generated LLM version.
DanielHB 3mo ago
You don't understand what the OP said, your brain can get a intrinsic reward from seeing users use your LLM work. But LLM remove all the little intrinsic rewards from coding elegant systems to get to the point where you see users using your work. It is all about the destination now where it used to be about the journey and the destination.
- throw1234567891 3mo ago
  I think you don't understand that they understand. For them it's the destination that matters. Their journey is different.
  - bluefirebrand 3mo ago
    They are admitting pretty directly that even they don't value their own journey only their destination
- iso1631 3mo ago
  I wrote some software nearly 20 years ago, haven't touched it for over a decade. The code was terrible, but I don't care, it did the job, and people still use it despite a whole team of people who have tried to replace it with "elegant" code in frameworks which have come and gone. The reason people still use it is that it solves their needs, not the programmer's needs. The goal was to make the user's life better, not to make a work of art
  - customguy 3mo ago
    All you're saying is that for you only the destination ever mattered. But it's very apparent that is not true for a lot of people. And "solving needs" is kinda vague. We drank from lead cups for a long time, because perfect knowledge of material and biology was secondary to just having a cup. And no single sip from any lead cup killed or maybe even much harmed any person, but it all added and adds up. Of course the comparison with lead is kinda over the top, but it's just to illustrate the principle. If your software crashes the computer 1 out of 1000 runs, and it otherwise crucial and unique, people will still use it, and the longer and the more people use it, the more human lifetime it "destroys". If it would take you 1 year to find the source of the crash, it may not be worth it, if it would take you 30 minutes, it might be. You just won't get recompensated for it, you'd have to get satisfaction from it via something like craftsmanship. Your users don't know either way, so it's your job to know. Saying it's not, everybody just has to be content with the transaction, is a bit like saying a doctor doesn't have to do medicine according to what they know is likely best, but according to what their patient thinks they need.
AyanamiKaine 3mo ago
It seems to be a big fight between the I am interested in the end result and I am interested in the process. Some people think the same regarding art, they dont see art in the process only in the end result. I believe no one is right, but also no one is wrong.
- luipugs 3mo ago
  There is no art without process though. The art is the process. Is an automatic piano more beautiful than a world class pianist? Of course not. I am not strictly equating this to coding though. Like the GP sometimes I am driven more by the product than by being able to make it by hand. But that does not mean vibe coding, I still make sure the code is up to my standards.
  - phoghed 3mo ago
    Maybe for the person who automated the piano it is
- dare944 3mo ago
  Well, a large swath of both sides are wrong in that they insist theirs is the only valid perspective.
- tripleee 3mo ago
  Employees are rewarded by the process Employers/owners are rewarded by the end result It's obvious why employees using an LLM would get burnt out

hdjrudni 3mo ago

I don't even want to put 'my' code or apps out into the wild anymore. I've built a a few things I think are useful and I'm using myself but I'm afraid it'll just get called slop or my only users will be bots. What's the point. So I don't get the joy out of sharing it nor the joy of the achievement. But I've widdled down what I thought was an endless backlog of features to nearly zero, I guess that's something.

Schlagbohrer 3mo ago
Github's weekly Top Trending repos list is depressing. Slop on top of slop, many doing the exact same thing as each other with so much low-quality content it's challenging to read through and compare similar repos.
encyclopedism 3mo ago
If it's code built by an LLM it's almost inherently uninteresting in that 'anyone' can also generate the same slop. Beyond the initial novelty the 'achievement' really doesn't stretch that far. Your slop, my slop, their slop it's all 'slop' and no one can really care about slop. The novelty is wearing thin fast
- deaux 3mo ago
  Of course not, this makes no sense. It's the opposite, most of LLM generated apps are indeed uninteresting, yet it's not inherent at all. Most photos, most drawings, most human-written articles are uninteresting and have been so since forever. Nothing about that is inherent. And in the exact same manner, no, others can't generate the same thing. They physically can, but that has never been a barrier. If I make uninteresting art, it's not because I physically lack the ability to use my hands in a manner that would create interesting art. It's because I can't come up with the ideas, and lack the taste, to produce interesting art.
  - encyclopedism 3mo ago
    I think you missed my point I'm not denying the code does not produce a function of effect. The code however is uninteresting because almost anyone can also generate it. I'm interested in the source code to Quake but not in the source code to an LLM generated Quake equivalent, I love to hear about the Fast Inverse Square Root formula in Quake that Id software wrote but I'm unmoved by the generated LLM version.

DanielHB 3mo ago

You don't understand what the OP said, your brain can get a intrinsic reward from seeing users use your LLM work. But LLM remove all the little intrinsic rewards from coding elegant systems to get to the point where you see users using your work. It is all about the destination now where it used to be about the journey and the destination.

throw1234567891 3mo ago
I think you don't understand that they understand. For them it's the destination that matters. Their journey is different.
- bluefirebrand 3mo ago
  They are admitting pretty directly that even they don't value their own journey only their destination
iso1631 3mo ago
I wrote some software nearly 20 years ago, haven't touched it for over a decade. The code was terrible, but I don't care, it did the job, and people still use it despite a whole team of people who have tried to replace it with "elegant" code in frameworks which have come and gone. The reason people still use it is that it solves their needs, not the programmer's needs. The goal was to make the user's life better, not to make a work of art
- customguy 3mo ago
  All you're saying is that for you only the destination ever mattered. But it's very apparent that is not true for a lot of people. And "solving needs" is kinda vague. We drank from lead cups for a long time, because perfect knowledge of material and biology was secondary to just having a cup. And no single sip from any lead cup killed or maybe even much harmed any person, but it all added and adds up. Of course the comparison with lead is kinda over the top, but it's just to illustrate the principle. If your software crashes the computer 1 out of 1000 runs, and it otherwise crucial and unique, people will still use it, and the longer and the more people use it, the more human lifetime it "destroys". If it would take you 1 year to find the source of the crash, it may not be worth it, if it would take you 30 minutes, it might be. You just won't get recompensated for it, you'd have to get satisfaction from it via something like craftsmanship. Your users don't know either way, so it's your job to know. Saying it's not, everybody just has to be content with the transaction, is a bit like saying a doctor doesn't have to do medicine according to what they know is likely best, but according to what their patient thinks they need.

AyanamiKaine 3mo ago

It seems to be a big fight between the I am interested in the end result and I am interested in the process. Some people think the same regarding art, they dont see art in the process only in the end result. I believe no one is right, but also no one is wrong.

luipugs 3mo ago
There is no art without process though. The art is the process. Is an automatic piano more beautiful than a world class pianist? Of course not. I am not strictly equating this to coding though. Like the GP sometimes I am driven more by the product than by being able to make it by hand. But that does not mean vibe coding, I still make sure the code is up to my standards.
- phoghed 3mo ago
  Maybe for the person who automated the piano it is
dare944 3mo ago
Well, a large swath of both sides are wrong in that they insist theirs is the only valid perspective.
tripleee 3mo ago
Employees are rewarded by the process Employers/owners are rewarded by the end result It's obvious why employees using an LLM would get burnt out