101–110 of 208 posts
It's still too early to say what will the outlook be like in the next ten years, wrt to AI, but one thing I am perfectly sure of is: AI will always produce 'errors' due to the fundamental fact that it's heuristics-based. Maybe fewer and fewer, but the mistakes will never be totally eliminated. This is why those wanting to learn how to write software shouldn't get discouraged that 'Oh, AI will replace human programmer…
Well, my way of thinking about it is basically that I did not spend my life shiting on over-engineered-bloated-Golberg-machine source code written by so-called programmers to finish my life asking agents to generate these same stuff 10x faster. I love code, you don't, fine. So be it.
While this was true 1+ years ago, the agents don't write bad code anymore. They might not write according to your preferences, but you can also have it adjust to your style. Also, humans didn't evolve to write or read code, even the best programmers are terrible at it from an objective point of view, if we compare it to what is theoretically possible.
And, no, it is not a question about style or preferences, the code is messy and contains to me as a maintainer obvious bugs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it this fuzzy blob of ineffable experiences, aesthetics, qualia, self-reference, dualism, spirituality and other things? I don't need to reject all this to notice that its fuzziness makes it impossible to operationalize.
It's supposed to be experienced, not 'operationalized.'
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Topic title: Programming is Art > for me, programming isn't art or a hobby > make money Do you mean their seal?
But the article isn't titled "Programming is art for me", is it? And the article clearly stated that I belong to the type of people for whom programming is a way to make money. It went on to say that there is another type of person for whom programming is an art.
You could have avoided the programmer classification entirely here while staying consistent, but instead seem to be distancing yourself from again, your own framing just because you chose a different path which I don't understand at all.
I am (still) not a proponent for AI, however I hope AI might do to programming what the camera did to painting, and I hope that will be a good thing. What we understand as painting today is very different then what painting meant pre-camera. Now it is mostly a leisure activity and creative outlet. Where back in the day it was a serious occupation for capturing reality, and therefore creativity was taking second stage…
Well, my way of thinking about it is basically that I did not spend my life shiting on over-engineered-bloated-Golberg-machine source code written by so-called programmers to finish my life asking agents to generate these same stuff 10x faster. I love code, you don't, fine. So be it.
I am (still) not a proponent for AI, however I hope AI might do to programming what the camera did to painting, and I hope that will be a good thing. What we understand as painting today is very different then what painting meant pre-camera. Now it is mostly a leisure activity and creative outlet. Where back in the day it was a serious occupation for capturing reality, and therefore creativity was taking second stage…
Half assed fun fact: there was this painter I can't recall his name, the one that painted that girl with the head scurf. He might have used camera obscura and traced the picture. To me it feels like our times. There's a new tool that can be used along with the tools we have been using for decades to create something magical.
Indeed that is one theory. He was also a master at his craft so this is exactly the transition period where the master of the old method is able to adapt a technology in a way later pupils likely can not, due to the experience without the tool at hand.
Sounds a lot like the AI transition we are making now.
I am (still) not a proponent for AI, however I hope AI might do to programming what the camera did to painting, and I hope that will be a good thing. What we understand as painting today is very different then what painting meant pre-camera. Now it is mostly a leisure activity and creative outlet. Where back in the day it was a serious occupation for capturing reality, and therefore creativity was taking second stage…
I think that is quite likely but it is going to be a painful transition. Especially for the people who were only attracted to the profession for the money.
I am (still) not a proponent for AI, however I hope AI might do to programming what the camera did to painting, and I hope that will be a good thing. What we understand as painting today is very different then what painting meant pre-camera. Now it is mostly a leisure activity and creative outlet. Where back in the day it was a serious occupation for capturing reality, and therefore creativity was taking second stage…
Anything is art if it touches the feelings. Art is a feeling.