That's not at all what's being discussed in this article. We copy-pasted from SO before this. This article is talking about 99% fully autonomous coding with agents, not copy-pasting 400 times from a chat bot.
Hi, please re-read the parent comment again, which was claiming
> Starting back in 2022/2023:
> - (~2022) It can auto-complete one line, but it can't write a full function.
> - (~2023) Ok, it can write a full function, but it can't write a full feature.
This was a direct refutation, with evidence, that in 2023 people were not claiming that LLMs "can't write a full feature", because, as demonstrated, people were already building full applications with it at the time.
This obviously is not talking exclusively about agents, because agents did not exist in 2022.
I get your point, but I'll just say that I did not intend my comment to be interpreted so literally.
Also, just because SOMEONE planted a flag in 2023 saying that an LLM could build an app certainly does NOT mean that "people were not claiming that LLMs "can't write a full feature"". People in this very thread are still claiming LLMs can't write features. Opinions vary.
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.
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!
> "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.
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.
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.
> "I find it quite interesting that you categorize non-coders the same as quacks, analphabets, and lies."
I categorized them not as "the same", but as examples of concept-delineating polar opposites. This as answer to somebody who essentially trotted out the "but they're just labels!1!!" line, which was already considered intellectually lazy before it was turned into a sad meme by people who married their bongs back in the 90s.
> "I would never consider myself a coder - though I can and have written quite a lot of code over the years [...]"
Good for you. A coder, to me, is simply somebody who can produce working programs on their own and has the neccessary occupational (self-) respect. This fans out into several degrees of capabilities, of course.
> "[...] 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. "
No. I simply answered this one question:
> “If I’m not the man who can [...] build working programs… WHO AM I?”
Aside from that I reflected on an insulting(ly daft) but extremely common attitude amongst sloperators, especially on parasocial media platforms:
> "As it turns out, writing code isn’t super useful."
Imagine I go to some other SIG to say shit like this: As it turns out, [reading and writing words/playing or operating an instrument or tool/drawing/calculating/...] isn’t "super useful". Suckers!
I'd expect to get properly mocked and then banned.
> "You basically took some people talking about their own opinions on what they find enjoyable, [...]"
Congratulations, you're just the next strawmen salesman. For the last time, bambini: I don't care if this guy uses LLMs and enjoys it... for that was never the focus of my argument at all.
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...
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.
> "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.
> 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.
I always find it fascinating when science catches up to the Bible.
The Bible clearly articulates some form of generational “pass-through” for the sins of the father passing to the children.
While I do think it largely refers to a spiritual judgement, it’s hard to ignore the real-world examples of abuse that always seem to repeat themselves without a huge effort on the part of, someone, usually the child after they’ve grown up, to break the cycle.
Source: I’ve seen a lot of brokenness in our country’s foster system.
Where does the Bible say that the sins of the father are passed to the children? Ezekiel 18 says exactly the opposite.
Romans 5 doesn't say we inherit Adam's sin but that we inherit the consequences of Adam's sin.
Exodus 20:5 says the iniquity of the fathers pass down for three or four generations. This is not referring to the sin itself, but to the effects of the sin of the children who grow up watching their parents sin and learn to do the same.
Psalm 51:5 says children are brought forth in iniquity and in sin they are conceived, but this doesn't refer to the child's sin but to the parent's sin.
The concept of original sin didn't come into being until early in the fifth century but there really isn't scriptural support for it.
Couldn’t read the article (ad blockers just decided the whole site is an ad, perhaps?)
But I agree. I (foolishly) spent money on an Xbox last year only to find bugs that would make the Windows operating system weep. My kids have to ask me CONSTANTLY to update things, re-install game, or even just troubleshoot a damn controller not working.
Compare that to Steam, where I can just add them to my family and give them access to a huge number of split-screen compatible games across my entire catalog. It just doesn’t make financial sense to keep supporting Microsoft’s enshittification of everything.
Yeah we’ve got a legal system for it, but it always has been and always will be silly.
reply