Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Making

beej.us

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 194 posts

Re: Making

#41

Post by aNapierkowski »

planb wrote: post #39
uncivilized wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In your examples, you didn’t “make” anything. The person whose work trained the LLM made the work. The landscaper made the lawn. I don’t know how it’s possible to take pride in doing nothing. I can hire a maid to make my bed for me and tell her how exactly to fluff my pillows and duvet but I would take no pride in that.

Let’s not argue about the meaning of “making”, but that’s a very limited view of how value is created. So in your view the producer or even the director of a movie cannot take pride in it because the actors are the ones doing the work?

you can take pride in it, definitely added value and also acknowledge that an actor turned director (to keep the metaphor going) may have different feelings about the process even if they are happy with the end result similarly a coder turned manager or director may have some internal struggle with not actually doing the coding anymore -- similar to how one might feel having made a product or feature entirely with AI coding

Article does take a stance on the term "making" vs "having a hand in creation" fwiw. I guess the latter doesn't have a great term yet which is why an argument over the term making is sincere

Re: Making

#42

Post by ModernMech »

jscd wrote: post #37
planb wrote: post #20

I know many people agree but I can’t really follow this sentiment. I can still take pride in something I “made” with an LLM even if I did not write a single line of code for it. I wouldn’t show it around and proclaim what a great programmer I am, because I did not program it, but coding was never the main goal, it was always the means to create the finished end product. When I plan a remake of my garden and then hire…

I don't think the "would not exist if I hadn't created it" argument really works. If I delegate a project to someone else, and they do the project, does that mean I did it? In my mind, I could comfortably say I managed it, or I designed some parts of it, but I really couldn't take the credit for actually doing it. You wanted it to be done, so you asked someone to do it. If anything, I would say your conclusion should…

What about a director of a movie. They aren't responsible for the creative performances but they are certainly given a heap of credit for having made the movie.

I ask 10 actors for 10 scenes and I combine them into a movie I wanted.

I ask 10 agents for 10 functions and I combine them into a program I wanted.

What's the difference and why is the guy who used agents not credited the same way as a director? Maybe all that's missing is a long list of credits for everyone involved -- so transparency in who did what?

Re: Making

#43

Post by IncreasePosts »

hbcdbff wrote: post #8

This, I’ve completely lost interest in side projects outside of work since the emergence of LLMs. It does nothing for me any more

Interesting - I'm just the opposite. I had 100 side projects rattling around in my skull for years but had no desire to spend even more time on the computer after all the time at work on one, even though all of them from a technical perspective were well within my skillset. So now I can actually get them out of my head and basically for free with almost no effort. Maybe the way we view side projects is different - if you were doing a side project just for the love of the game, then yes I can see LLM outputs not scratching that itch. But if you are doing the side project because of some tangible benefit of it, then LLMs are great.

Re: Making

#44

Post by mark242 »

uncivilized wrote: post #36
planb wrote: post #20

I know many people agree but I can’t really follow this sentiment. I can still take pride in something I “made” with an LLM even if I did not write a single line of code for it. I wouldn’t show it around and proclaim what a great programmer I am, because I did not program it, but coding was never the main goal, it was always the means to create the finished end product. When I plan a remake of my garden and then hire…

In your examples, you didn’t “make” anything. The person whose work trained the LLM made the work. The landscaper made the lawn. I don’t know how it’s possible to take pride in doing nothing. I can hire a maid to make my bed for me and tell her how exactly to fluff my pillows and duvet but I would take no pride in that.

Your compiler created the bytecode that the CPU runs. How can you take pride in writing your Rust code?

Re: Making

#45

Post by wpm »

jvanderbot wrote: post #10

Does a machinist who uses CNC qualify as a machinist? Is his required knowledge of metals, assembly complexity, tolerances, just waved away because he doesn't turn the dials or change the tools any more?

> Does a machinist who uses CNC qualify as a machinist?

Yes. The CNC doesn't act on its own.

If I ask the CNC "make me a widget", am I a machinist?

Re: Making

#46

Post by pixl97 »

jscd wrote: post #37
planb wrote: post #20

I know many people agree but I can’t really follow this sentiment. I can still take pride in something I “made” with an LLM even if I did not write a single line of code for it. I wouldn’t show it around and proclaim what a great programmer I am, because I did not program it, but coding was never the main goal, it was always the means to create the finished end product. When I plan a remake of my garden and then hire…

I don't think the "would not exist if I hadn't created it" argument really works. If I delegate a project to someone else, and they do the project, does that mean I did it? In my mind, I could comfortably say I managed it, or I designed some parts of it, but I really couldn't take the credit for actually doing it. You wanted it to be done, so you asked someone to do it. If anything, I would say your conclusion should…

You're honest, but you'd make a terrible CEO in this day and age.

Re: Making

#47

Post by WillAdams »

mark242 wrote: post #44
uncivilized wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In your examples, you didn’t “make” anything. The person whose work trained the LLM made the work. The landscaper made the lawn. I don’t know how it’s possible to take pride in doing nothing. I can hire a maid to make my bed for me and tell her how exactly to fluff my pillows and duvet but I would take no pride in that.

Your compiler created the bytecode that the CPU runs. How can you take pride in writing your Rust code?

That point was specifically addressed in the article.

Given that a compiler doesn't include a statistical model likely to create one's written Rust code, the compiled bytecode is quite clearly an expression of said writing.

Re: Making

#48

Post by dd8601fn »

planb wrote: post #20

I know many people agree but I can’t really follow this sentiment. I can still take pride in something I “made” with an LLM even if I did not write a single line of code for it. I wouldn’t show it around and proclaim what a great programmer I am, because I did not program it, but coding was never the main goal, it was always the means to create the finished end product. When I plan a remake of my garden and then hire…

Seems pretty simple in your analogy.

You can be proud of having commissioned a thing… be it landscaping or software… just not for making anything you didn’t.

And of course there are shades of grey in between, depending on how critical you were to the doing.

Re: Making

#49

Post by themacguffinman »

planb wrote: post #39
uncivilized wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In your examples, you didn’t “make” anything. The person whose work trained the LLM made the work. The landscaper made the lawn. I don’t know how it’s possible to take pride in doing nothing. I can hire a maid to make my bed for me and tell her how exactly to fluff my pillows and duvet but I would take no pride in that.

Let’s not argue about the meaning of “making”, but that’s a very limited view of how value is created. So in your view the producer or even the director of a movie cannot take pride in it because the actors are the ones doing the work?

A large part of how actors act is specific cues given to them by the director, which is pretty clearly work by the director. A director also gives specific instructions for a lot of other things that have a noticeable impact on the resulting value of the movie.

That's different from telling a maid to generally clean your home. If you gave a maid specific instructions on how to clean and how to move things around in a way that made a noticeable impact on how clean your house ended up being, you could be proud of the managerial work you're doing. But no one does that, because people pay money to not have to work.

Likewise, if you just told an LLM to let it rip on a general task then you're not doing much work, but if you were managing the LLM to do specific things then you are doing significant work.

Re: Making

#50

Post by dwroberts »

planb wrote: post #20

I know many people agree but I can’t really follow this sentiment. I can still take pride in something I “made” with an LLM even if I did not write a single line of code for it. I wouldn’t show it around and proclaim what a great programmer I am, because I did not program it, but coding was never the main goal, it was always the means to create the finished end product. When I plan a remake of my garden and then hire…

> I can still take pride in something I “made” with an LLM

You didn't make it

Post reply on HN