I'm not quite understand what "language-extrapolation" actually means.
Personally, I don't use AI because I like to program myself. There are many other reasons, but this simple one dominates.
Personally, I don't use AI because I like to program myself. There are many other reasons, but this simple one dominates.
Depending on your "job to be done", you will prefer one level of abstraction or another.
Example from before AI: I've always hated javascript frameworks like nest.js because they were doing too much magic under the hood. But for a simple CRUD application in MVP, I'd might use it.
Imaging that you purchase a video game, but then use LLM to play this game for you. Another example is Chess. Stockfish is more efficient than most Chess players, but playing Chess using programming assistant (even a little bit) is no longer a sport competition.
I also agree that not everyone like programming, and see it just as a job to be done.
But I'm now wondering why programming with AI doesn't feel like art (which is totally true to me at this point)?
For me I'd say the answer is related to feeling in control. Either: - I don't know enough about using AI to code and feel I'm in control or; - the tools are not at the level I need to feel like I'm in control
example: you try to come up with the name for the most promising next tool (as in, a concept), as you personally judge how it should be named best. (IF YOU KNOW HOW TO TALK, you should have no problems with this.) you ask AI to explain that term. if AI misses significantly, you make your term more precise. pro tip. inspired by my learning style. example can be seen in my latest submission
i like to program myself by hand too, but you can use AI for programming others.
I say it's counterintuitive in the sense that for a business, the "sheer" output now possible, not just in code... but in marketing automation, documentation, testing, prototyping which brings you competitive advantage that just can't be compared, I understand that you can still make money without AI, but if you can, you can also make so much more money with AI, it's not only about the money, it's also that you can solo handle complex projects (assuming you have the mental bandwidth to manage 30 threads in parallel).
I completely respect the OP's position for personal projects and hobbyist work but I don't see how you can make more money without using AI, quality of code (but even this, I'd argue that 20 rounds of adversarial with 10 models is not really beatable) is rarely a success factor in business.
In the past there was a "human computer" profession[^1] where people earn money for calculating by hand. Soon they were replaced by just normal computers. But computers were rare and expensive. Not everyone could afford of having one. So, there was a period of time where the big business had an opportunity. This opportunity also gone, once the home computers widespread.
The businesses may be in advantage of selling products made with AI. But I foresee that the value of these products will degrade eventually, because everyone will manage to do more or less the same at home. Ordinary software will no longer be a thing you can sell or advertise easily.
You would have to try harder to produce something unordinary. And even if you do, it will be very easy to replicate for competitors using AI.
I think that maybe not today but in a few years the Internet will be full of generated content most users wouldn't trust, and wouldn't be interested in mostly. And there will be no novel ideas available for public, because any know-how will be carefully hidden.
To conclude, it's not just about "code quality". If you are making something unusual you can make by hand, that the AI cannot imaging, you have very serious reasons not to disclose it in a new reality.