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

Grief and the AI split

blog.lmorchard.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 404 posts

Re: Grief and the AI split

#331

Post by orsorna »

maplethorpe wrote: post #328

I suppose I see the split a little bit differently. To me it's more that one camp of developers can still get a hit of satisfaction as if they built something themselves even if it was entirely generated by AI. Would they get the same satisfaction from cloning a public repo? Probably not. It's too clear to their brain that they didn't have anything to do with it. What about building the project with cmake? That requi…

I don't follow your analogy at all. Suppose I want to build an application with xyz features. My research yields that there are no such applications that include xyz features. However, there are plenty of applications that might have x feature, y feature or z feature, or a combination of two, but not all three.

If there are no such applications, I don't have a choice but to write it myself. This could take some time, especially if an MVP is all I'm interested in. LLMs are a novel tool in building an MVP. If time is a constraint, I can use an LLM, which should excel since xyz features are in its training set.

I suppose your analogy follows for developers who write applications that support abc features even though there are already applications out there that support abc features. Yes, I don't think that is very interesting. Your umpteenth clone of Snake is not interesting.

Re: Grief and the AI split

#332

Post by ssk42 »

camgunz wrote: post #297
simonw wrote: post #2

This sounds right to me: > Before AI, both camps were doing the same thing every day. Writing code by hand. Using the same editors, the same languages, the same pull request workflows. The craft-lovers and the make-it-go people sat next to each other, shipped the same products, looked indistinguishable. The motivation behind the work was invisible because the process was identical. Helps explain why some people are d…

I think SWEs are genuinely pretty shocked and awed that codegen models can code at all, let alone code well. My guess is a lot of the agita around this is that people thought "I can code therefore I'm smart/special/etc." and then a machine comes by that can do pretty equivalent work and they're entirely unmoored. I sympathize with that, and I don't mean to dismiss it, but that's not what I feel. I really dislike this…

I’m sorry but in this day and age, why would you not use AI with safeguards? With giving it the proper context and best practices you’re looking for. These are all very solved in Claude and any agentic system. Are you saying that you don’t? This just feels insulting to those of us who do care about code but do love Claude

Re: Grief and the AI split

#333

Post by signatoremo »

skydhash wrote: post #281
XenophileJKO wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there is more to it than that. I am a high quality/craftsmanship person. I like coding and puzzling. I am highly skilled in functional leaning object oriented deconstruction and systems design. I'm also pretty risk averse. I also have always believed that you should always be "sharpening your axe". For things like Java delelopment or things where I couldn't use a concise syntax would make extensive use of dyn…

> I'm looking at (or now debating with the AI) what is the best algorithm for something. That line always makes me laugh. There’s only 2 points of an algorithm, domain correctness and technical performance. For the first, you need to step out of the code. And for the second you need proofs. Not sure what is there to debate about.

Not true. There is also cost, money or opportunity. Correctness or performance isn't binary -- 4 or 5 nines, 6 or 7 decimal precision, just to name a few. That drives a lot discussion.

There may be other considerations as well -- licensing terms, resources, etc.

Re: Grief and the AI split

#334

Post by orsorna »

orsorna wrote: post #331
maplethorpe wrote: post #328

I suppose I see the split a little bit differently. To me it's more that one camp of developers can still get a hit of satisfaction as if they built something themselves even if it was entirely generated by AI. Would they get the same satisfaction from cloning a public repo? Probably not. It's too clear to their brain that they didn't have anything to do with it. What about building the project with cmake? That requi…

I don't follow your analogy at all. Suppose I want to build an application with xyz features. My research yields that there are no such applications that include xyz features. However, there are plenty of applications that might have x feature, y feature or z feature, or a combination of two, but not all three. If there are no such applications, I don't have a choice but to write it myself. This could take some time…

Further, I don't argue that 100% prompting an application together isn't building something themselves. Built on the shoulders of leviathans, as libraries were built on the shoulders of giants of yore.

But an application that combines xyz features is novel in this scenario. There is inherent value in that.

Re: Grief and the AI split

#335

Post by eloisius »

chrisvalleybay wrote: post #285
khafra wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whether the labor theory of value is right or wrong, the "real split" you describe will soon no longer exist. Capital owners will live on the labor of their capital. Non-capital-owners will live on the largesse of capital, or will not live at all. Unless we muster the political will to stop AI development, internationally, until we can be certain of our ability to durably imbue it with the intrinsic desire to keep hu…

I think there's a piece missing here. Capital owners are humans too, and what humans want (perhaps especially the ones who accumulate capital), is to be at the top of a hierarchy. But a hierarchy needs participants. If nobody else is playing the game, there's no top to be on top of. Strip away the people willing to compete, admire, envy, or just show up, and the whole structure collapses. It's not clear that a world…

They can still keep us as pets, or use us for cage fighting spectacles.

Re: Grief and the AI split

#336

Post by wolvesechoes »

jasonlotito wrote: post #311
wolvesechoes wrote: post #210

The real split is between people that believe technological progress is good by itself and by the law of nature it always makes life better and easier, and people that know the history and know that stuff like 8 hours workday wasn't spat out of steam machine - it had to be fought for through political struggle, because actual "natural" consequence of increased productivity was increase in workload.

The absolutist extremes here is wild. Let's just push the pedal to the metal. The real split are between those that support science and technology, and those that hate science and technology and want to see more children die.

The same children that those pushing for "science and technology" were sending to work in mines during last spectacular technological developments that promised to reduce need for hard-breaking labor?

Re: Grief and the AI split

#337

Post by calebkaiser »

oytis wrote: post #278

I think we should already get past pretending it's about people who just like typing words on their stupid mechanical keyboards. The real split is whether you like understanding systems and inventing new things or whether you are OK to delegate this part to someone else and are just happy to take credit for their success. With a small note that when someone else is a human, the credit can be justified if you mentored…

It's funny how "the real split" is always between the intellectually and morally superior (me) and the inferiors (them).

Re: Grief and the AI split

#338

Post by rglover »

mrob wrote: post #254

The optimal amount of generative AI in the world is zero. There are three possible scenarios, all of them bad: 1. Weaker than expected AI. Great Depression 2.0. Widespread poverty and suffering as the enormous investments already made fail to pay off. 2. AI works as expected. Dystopia. A few trillionaires gain absolute control of the entire world, and everyone else is enslaved or killed. 3. Stronger than excepted AI.…

I had a similar opinion until I started to see a flood of outages, data leaks, money being pulled, etc starting to crop up right as co's started hailing AI as the second coming.

Now? I'm waiting for the inevitable reality check. AI doesn't go away (I personally don't want it to; it's a power tool for an experienced dev), but imo, the market is not too far from correcting the hype. Reality can only shoulder so much bs before the rubber has to hit the road.

The promises being made over the last few years are not being fulfilled and big money likes results, not talk. So, unless we get another (significant) rabbit coming out of the hat in 2026, the momentum (again, imo) won't be there to sustain the necessary long-term growth (i.e., in terms of mass-adoption, this era of AI is closer to AOL than Facebook).

Re: Grief and the AI split

#339

Post by starkparker »

> I grieve for the web I've known. Not for writing HTML by hand, but I grieve for the open web as an ecosystem.

These seem more related than is stated. Shifting creation from individual people to corporate-owned AI tools is another step from being able to write it yourself in the common venue of the web, to being forced to either submit to owned tools or be relegated out of the mainstream.

We're still in a sort of purgatory between the two, but the DIY web is creeping into the rear view, and every moment of proprietary generative AI adoption accelerates it.

Re: Grief and the AI split

#340

Post by marssaxman »

rdevilla wrote: post #308
oytis wrote: post #278

I think we should already get past pretending it's about people who just like typing words on their stupid mechanical keyboards. The real split is whether you like understanding systems and inventing new things or whether you are OK to delegate this part to someone else and are just happy to take credit for their success. With a small note that when someone else is a human, the credit can be justified if you mentored…

"Claude, lift these weights for me."

We have machines lift weights for us all the time. Claude is a forklift for the mind, perhaps?
Post reply on HN