Our efforts, in part, define us • Hacker News Board

Re: Our efforts, in part, define us

#81

Post by bsenftner » Wed, Oct 01, 2025, 1:52 PM UTC

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #71

nuancebydefault wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. If we SW developers define ourselves as 'coders', we could easily end up into this identity crisis which the article seems to refer to. But in fact we are much more than that. We are problem solvers and a big part of it is understanding, defining and refining the problem itself and in finding an elegant solution. The meaningfulness comes from all the communication and experimenting involved with that process,…

This is the frustrating part of software engineering too; the coding itself is the "boring" part, but for me and many others it's also the most fun and gratifying part, the thing you really want to be doing. Something to grow out of I suppose, but still. The AI vendors want to sell to upper management that that part is what's slowing their company down or costing a lot of money, but I don't think it's that. And in a…

"Software engineering" is a communications problem, and software engineering degrees do not even teach or approach teaching communications. That's a huge disconnect. I still can't understand why the larger industry does not see what our entire industry does is a communications and translation problem/solution/service. So much of what people try to do breaks down at the basic communications level, yet nobody seems to realize it is the communications at fault. And that effective communications is a teachable formal subject.

(So, anyway, what I'm doing now is creating class courseware that teaches effective communications for developers.)

Re: Our efforts, in part, define us

#82

Post by falcor84 » Wed, Oct 01, 2025, 1:52 PM UTC

xandrius wrote: post #61

makerofthings wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I became a programmer because I like to write code. Having an llm write code for me is like building a robot that eats cake.

You can still write code without AI. But for people who actually have the goal of solving problems they can now solve much more problems!

For what it's worth, collecting new problems to solve is actually the main fuel for improving the AIs, so if GenAI becomes good at creating problems, which it can iterate on tackling, then there's a flywheel going.

Re: Our efforts, in part, define us

#83

Post by aeon_ai » Wed, Oct 01, 2025, 1:58 PM UTC

At some point -- sometimes early, often too late -- we realize we're going to die. Our time is finite. We have only so many days to do anything, let alone something that matters.

Meaning is found in how and why we spend that time.

When we're fooled into believing money matters more than time, we trade far too much of the latter for the former. Worse, we can mistake the monetary value of our time for its actual value, and then optimize our entire lives according to that myth.

The idea that AI destroys meaning is a false framing. Many people are already experiencing a meaning crisis, and AI is simply an easy scapegoat.

Purpose comes from discovering our own values through living, not from accepting meanings imposed by others.

Re: Our efforts, in part, define us

#84

Post by analog8374 » Wed, Oct 01, 2025, 1:59 PM UTC

bsenftner wrote: post #9

Maybe this is a neurodivergent thing, but I have, as long as I can remember, always had the following progression in my mind: "What are you doing? No, that's this situation's name, what is this really?" and I'd continue a few times seeking the "larger problem, the more basic problem being solved" that whatever I was doing "really is". That "basic problem" was "communicating" far more frequently than I expected, and t…

Good strategy!

One of mine is to ask myself "what is my attention on?". You'd be surprised at how often the answer is, "a bunch of thoughts".

Re: Our efforts, in part, define us

#85

Post by bsenftner » Wed, Oct 01, 2025, 2:01 PM UTC

PunchTornado wrote: post #65

bsenftner wrote: post #9

Maybe this is a neurodivergent thing, but I have, as long as I can remember, always had the following progression in my mind: "What are you doing? No, that's this situation's name, what is this really?" and I'd continue a few times seeking the "larger problem, the more basic problem being solved" that whatever I was doing "really is". That "basic problem" was "communicating" far more frequently than I expected, and t…

I don't understand how does this help if, yes, communicating, is what we are doing most of the time.

It's a framing mechanism, where when one identifies with "writing code" and gains a sense of purpose doing that, and then automation starts "writing code", does that trigger a loss of a sense of purpose? By framing one's innate skill as communicating it should not matter what medium one operates, they are still using non-casual and specific communications to do their job, even when code generation, or ad copy generation, or a talking spokesperson video is the result.

Also, consider that a really good communicator often ends up running the places they are at, simply because they leave a wake of understanding behind them. That's really good for business operations.

Re: Our efforts, in part, define us

#86

Post by dangus » Wed, Oct 01, 2025, 2:06 PM UTC

aeon_ai wrote: post #83

At some point -- sometimes early, often too late -- we realize we're going to die. Our time is finite. We have only so many days to do anything, let alone something that matters. Meaning is found in how and why we spend that time. When we're fooled into believing money matters more than time, we trade far too much of the latter for the former. Worse, we can mistake the monetary value of our time for its actual value,…

I’d also extend this by saying that you can just exist and be happy and then die. There’s no need to be defined by some effort you’re putting into some kind of work or hobby.

If there’s someone out there who just sits on the beach all day and survives by eating coconuts they don’t have to be defined by photography or coding or whatever hobby is being used to seek external validation.

And that’s a bit of a problem with this article. The photographer that wants to quit because of digital photography? I find that odd, it seems to me like the film community has a really great time with the craft of film photography in the digital age. If anything, the massive shrinkage in available professional labs should make the art of developing your own photos even more validating.

Why didn’t this photographer want to quit when Kodak made disposable cameras and CVS would develop your photos in an hour? I submit that it isn’t digital photography that killed their hobby/passion.

It’s okay to not love doing something anymore and take a break or move on to something else. I think this idea that it defines you is a bit of a toxic validation mechanism.

Re: Our efforts, in part, define us

#87

Post by joeyhage » Wed, Oct 01, 2025, 2:07 PM UTC

As others have mentioned, LLMs require a lot of effort to get it right. Personally, I still prefer writing code over writing LLM prompts but I’m trying to find the right balance. I will always enjoy refactoring so I tend to have the LLM get me most of the way there and leave the polishing for myself.

Re: Our efforts, in part, define us

#88

Post by gsf_emergency_2 » Wed, Oct 01, 2025, 2:10 PM UTC

aeon_ai wrote: post #83

At some point -- sometimes early, often too late -- we realize we're going to die. Our time is finite. We have only so many days to do anything, let alone something that matters. Meaning is found in how and why we spend that time. When we're fooled into believing money matters more than time, we trade far too much of the latter for the former. Worse, we can mistake the monetary value of our time for its actual value,…

There's this related phenom which seems paradoxical to me but maybe you can help figure:

Things that are built with money (& not by say, intrinsic motivation alone) seem to have a high ratio of (traction) to (resources invested). Not sure if marketing alone can explain that?

Obvious exceptions come to mind , eg the Linux kernel, but even that was massively boosted by commercial interests.

(One other class of exceptions could be tentatively named "winning the zeitgeist lottery")

If you would agree that this phenom exists in the short to mid time frame: without the likelihood of traction, how can intrinsic meaning alone provide motivation?

Re: Our efforts, in part, define us

#89

Post by mallowdram » Wed, Oct 01, 2025, 2:15 PM UTC

tolerance wrote: post #76

mallowdram wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The AI debacle is unusual as it's alive in disinformation at a scale that penetrates every status class. Of course AI is a failure of imagination. But so were symbols, which cannot reference, they can only represent, if at all. The real function of AI appears to be the transition away from symbols, metaphors, folk science cause and effect ideation. We're only barely sensing this, but if you listen to Gary Marcus, Ric…

Curious what your take on this piece might be. I recommend the last 1/3 of it if you’re pressed for time or wits. https://hedgehogreview.com/issues/lessons-of-babel/articles/...

Thanks for sending, I read it all. I think it keeps its feet in two incompatible realms. Ultimately LLMs turn us into wax fruit, not stochastic parrots.

The word is an arbitrary form, as myth is, (as symbols, money, news, states/politics) both are ultimately evolutionarily suspect in terms of animal signals, and we haven't found a specific workaround to that arbitrariness. That's extinction. The world is only specific, as is survival.

I suggest the only function of arbitrary signals is to refute themselves into replacement. The good thing about the AI debacle is that it's about speeding that up.

Re: Our efforts, in part, define us

#90

Post by kakacik » Wed, Oct 01, 2025, 2:15 PM UTC

pessimizer wrote: post #66

ants_everywhere wrote: post #44

> If our efforts, in part, define us, then our efforts have intrinsic value. By definition this is instrumental value rather than intrinsic value.

Middle class people can't distinguish their work from their identity. They seek a perfect harmony of purpose and output, in order to be the perfect servant. They need to sustain this for a lifetime, so their pleasure must come from the work (or they can supplement this with a hobby that is extremely job-shaped.) If they fail at this, they will be ejected from the middle class, and their children will not be properly…

Interesting perspective, I believe its way more valid for US than say Europe which has way more job/career obsession and sort of class system based on career/wealth status.

Middle class is squeezed everywhere, that's true. But I sincerely doubt young generations 'can't distinguish their work from their identity' en masse. Thats a recipe for disaster, at latest during retirement, probably with first firing from the job and generally a big stupid no-no. But don't expect state will drill this into you in the schools, its up to everybody to look around and figure these things out for themselves, just like rest if life (TM).