4 ms·

> You are not creating software with the exact rules that I have made up in my head on how software should be made, so I'm going to build a wall and hate you an

> You are not creating software with the exact rules that I have made up in my head on how software should be made, so I'm going to build a wall and hate you and the code you make. The funny thing about this comment is out of the gate it screams the exact reason people don't want the LLM generated code in their zone. This reads similar to people who make prompt art getting upset that they're not taken seriously. People demand respect for something they didn't earn. Programmers who have worked hard for their knowledge don't want to listen to the person who thinks they know everything because the magical machine spit out some working code. It doesn't matter if they're right or wrong. They're annoying and entitled. I'll just paste the classic Ian Malcom Jurassic Park quote. > I'll tell you the problem with the scientific power that you're using here, it didn't require any discipline to attain it. You read what others had done and you took the next step. You didn't earn the knowledge for yourselves, so you don't take any responsibility for it. You stood on the shoulders of geniuses to accomplish something as fast as you could, and before you even knew what you had, you patented it, and packaged it, and slapped it on a plastic lunchbox

arkwin 2mo ago
I can see the point you are trying to make, and I'll make a counterpoint to that. When you play the "didn't earn" card, you are really getting nowhere. It's a bad argument. It's putting up the gate, "I feel you didn't work hard enough for X result, but I did, so I must be better" I drive a manual car. Should I hate every automatic car driver? I have a master's degree in cybersecurity; should I shit on everyone who doesn't when they try to mention anything involving cybersecurity? I mean, I have a piece of paper that says I've earned it? On some level, yes. I would listen to the advice of a doctor over a random person on the internet. On another level, it's like saying, " Oh, you didn't have a blacksmith handcraft that knife for you, and you bought some machine-made knife? We should ban machine-made knives; the person making a knife using a machine didn't 'earn it '." Perhaps you shouldn't create code; after all, you probably didn't develop a compiler. Or the computer chip running it... Or the OS.. Did you really earn the right to develop something?
- MSFT_Edging 2mo ago
  It's less about "earning" and more the attitude and approach to the work. The flippant nature of people expecting the same respect for some piece of work that was churned out by a machine, as someone who understands every part. I know I used "earn" a lot in the last reply, but that was a shorthand for something more complex. A combination of appreciation, discipline, and a common work style. The LLM stuff is being gatekept because the people inside the gate care, and the people bringing the LLM code don't. I drive a manual car too, and I get upset when someone who doesn't care about where they're putting their car, let alone the transmission, endangers me on the road. They're apathetic. I work with people who have fully adopted claude in their work flows. They don't care about the code they push. They generate, prune, generate, prune in 10kloc increments. They're apathetic to others who might need to use this code and expect some kind of consistent architecture/interface. Its exhausting to deal with yet they love to say "I did this". I respect someone who tells me "I slopped this out" more, as they respect me enough to set expectations. I think if you're trying to build a community of people who care, you must defend against those who are apathetic, or else they'll bring the whole community down. This isn't to say all LLM users don't care about their work, but that there are far more people who are happy to push slop and take credit than the reverse. To carefully screen those people brings us back to the original complaint, LLMs turn programmers into paperwork drones. Attempting to screen these types of users takes away even more time from the purpose of the community.
  - arkwin 2mo ago
    Hey, thanks for taking the time to reply. And you bring up some good points. I'll be the first person to tell someone I used Claude on this. Hell I make sure it says co-authored by claude on my github projects specifically because I'm not trying to hide the fact that I'm using LLMs. I think you are correct, is not not really an LLM problem as much as its a person problem. But there doesn't seem to be a good way to fix this. If anything LLMs just expose someone's integrity? I don't know, its a hard answer. Some people use LLMs just because they are translating languages. How do you prove "work" or "knowledge?"
    - 2mo ago
rpdillon 2mo ago
The argument about entitlement is silly: every generation just "gets" all the benefits and hard work of the previous generations. We didn't have to invent the assembly line, or electricity, or radios, or transistors...I can work for a few hours in a McDonalds and make enough to buy a cell phone that would have power unimaginable to someone even 50 years ago. And heck, I'm a guy in my late 40s who's been programming since I was 8. I have a masters in CS, and have been a programmer for decades and I don't have the tiniest bit of resentment for the AI builders out there. Sure, they don't have my expertise, but they can still make cool stuff if they work at it. What's really happening is that Codeberg was build on the assumption that the volume of code submitted would be small, and that assumption no longer holds. So now everyone is backing into reasons why limitations have to be imposed, and of course they won't say "It's because we built this whole thing assuming not that many people would use it, and now we have tons of use, so we're going to ban projects that are the most voluminous." So instead, it's about malicious code, or copyright status, or entitlement, or some other topic. As for the Jeff Goldblum quote: "You read what others had done and you took the next step" is literally how human progress is made.

arkwin 2mo ago

I can see the point you are trying to make, and I'll make a counterpoint to that. When you play the "didn't earn" card, you are really getting nowhere. It's a bad argument. It's putting up the gate, "I feel you didn't work hard enough for X result, but I did, so I must be better" I drive a manual car. Should I hate every automatic car driver? I have a master's degree in cybersecurity; should I shit on everyone who doesn't when they try to mention anything involving cybersecurity? I mean, I have a piece of paper that says I've earned it? On some level, yes. I would listen to the advice of a doctor over a random person on the internet. On another level, it's like saying, " Oh, you didn't have a blacksmith handcraft that knife for you, and you bought some machine-made knife? We should ban machine-made knives; the person making a knife using a machine didn't 'earn it '." Perhaps you shouldn't create code; after all, you probably didn't develop a compiler. Or the computer chip running it... Or the OS.. Did you really earn the right to develop something?

MSFT_Edging 2mo ago
It's less about "earning" and more the attitude and approach to the work. The flippant nature of people expecting the same respect for some piece of work that was churned out by a machine, as someone who understands every part. I know I used "earn" a lot in the last reply, but that was a shorthand for something more complex. A combination of appreciation, discipline, and a common work style. The LLM stuff is being gatekept because the people inside the gate care, and the people bringing the LLM code don't. I drive a manual car too, and I get upset when someone who doesn't care about where they're putting their car, let alone the transmission, endangers me on the road. They're apathetic. I work with people who have fully adopted claude in their work flows. They don't care about the code they push. They generate, prune, generate, prune in 10kloc increments. They're apathetic to others who might need to use this code and expect some kind of consistent architecture/interface. Its exhausting to deal with yet they love to say "I did this". I respect someone who tells me "I slopped this out" more, as they respect me enough to set expectations. I think if you're trying to build a community of people who care, you must defend against those who are apathetic, or else they'll bring the whole community down. This isn't to say all LLM users don't care about their work, but that there are far more people who are happy to push slop and take credit than the reverse. To carefully screen those people brings us back to the original complaint, LLMs turn programmers into paperwork drones. Attempting to screen these types of users takes away even more time from the purpose of the community.
- arkwin 2mo ago
  Hey, thanks for taking the time to reply. And you bring up some good points. I'll be the first person to tell someone I used Claude on this. Hell I make sure it says co-authored by claude on my github projects specifically because I'm not trying to hide the fact that I'm using LLMs. I think you are correct, is not not really an LLM problem as much as its a person problem. But there doesn't seem to be a good way to fix this. If anything LLMs just expose someone's integrity? I don't know, its a hard answer. Some people use LLMs just because they are translating languages. How do you prove "work" or "knowledge?"
  - 2mo ago

rpdillon 2mo ago

The argument about entitlement is silly: every generation just "gets" all the benefits and hard work of the previous generations. We didn't have to invent the assembly line, or electricity, or radios, or transistors...I can work for a few hours in a McDonalds and make enough to buy a cell phone that would have power unimaginable to someone even 50 years ago. And heck, I'm a guy in my late 40s who's been programming since I was 8. I have a masters in CS, and have been a programmer for decades and I don't have the tiniest bit of resentment for the AI builders out there. Sure, they don't have my expertise, but they can still make cool stuff if they work at it. What's really happening is that Codeberg was build on the assumption that the volume of code submitted would be small, and that assumption no longer holds. So now everyone is backing into reasons why limitations have to be imposed, and of course they won't say "It's because we built this whole thing assuming not that many people would use it, and now we have tons of use, so we're going to ban projects that are the most voluminous." So instead, it's about malicious code, or copyright status, or entitlement, or some other topic. As for the Jeff Goldblum quote: "You read what others had done and you took the next step" is literally how human progress is made.