Take for example "go gen", React or Markdown to html, Helm templates, generics, Lisp, ... people think of these as code generation.
Taken further, both humans and LLMs generate code based on fuzzy statements
A transpiler is doing code gen as well, very similar to your link, but a different, typically text based, target
It’s not even thought provoking. Just boring blatant marketing and show off.
Codegen is the process of generating code automatically, based on a defined set of rules or specifications. There’s a wide ecosystem of codegen tools, including:
- Simple code completion in an integrated development environment (IDE), like Microsoft’s IntelliSense feature
- Templates for repeating code patterns, like code snippets in Figma
- Visual programming and no-code tools, like Bubble
- Modern AI-based codegen systems, like GitHub Copilot and Replit Ghostwriter
You don't need to use such biased language, it only hurts your argument
And how would that hurt the argument? It's not royalty where being offended in combination with power could be brought to bear. If you replace "AI vomit" with "the product of these fascinating achievements of the human mind and persistent experimentation" in a sentence, it chances not thing important about rest of the sentence.
Why should I take any arguments from an author seriously when they layer their bias on?
They could have replaced "vomit" with "output" and have had a better statement
This is besides the fact that they claimed I was referring only to AI output as what I mean by code gen, when I clearly listed many types of code gen. Again, they demonstrate bias and poor argumentation skills.
Because they're not referring to private experiences, but the the shared world. It's kind of rich to talk about "argumentation skills" while talking your personal need of taking arguments from "an author" seriously or not. Who cares? Then don't take them seriously, takes nothing away from them.
> I clearly listed many types of code gen
"Codegen is best for augmenting your design to development process, not automating it.", "AI-based code generation (codegen", "Instead of thinking about codegen as a replacement for a developer", "codegen can speed up your handoff workflow by making suggestions"
And so on. All throughout the article you use that word to mean one thing and one thing only. Or put differently, "Why should I take the arguments of someone seriously who doesn't know even know the article they wrote?"
What are you on about? I did not write the article
I was referring to my own comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37692519, to which the reply with "vomit" misrepresented what I had written
Maybe try not attacking people when you are going to make basic mistakes
> That's exactly the problem - codegen means a lot of things. You just talk about codegen and expect people to understand that you mean the AI vomit.
I took the "you" as more general here. It's not your comment (that came afterwards) mentioning codegen that is under discussion, but the article, and it it uses it that word exactly that way, and only that way.
You've only contributed the top-level comment in this branch of the thread
From the top level comment.
My reply about vomit applies to you then too, showing bias always weakens your argument
"If you add one fucking two to another two, you get the disgusting but still correct result of four"
It may weaken your ability to follow the argument, but not the argument itself. It does not weaken mine so maybe you're holding it wrong.
I am now sure you're holding it wrong, you're trying to make an analogy that does not work.
In the first case, an opinion is made about the quality of LLM output. Here, you are stating a mathematical fact two ways. There is nothing to debate about 2+2 being 4