I've been in the media space, so I've seen artists do this for years now.
It's fucking bullshit. It's like handmade goods (some of which turned out to be sweatshop produced anyway).
At the end of the day all code is ephemeral. It provides value in the here and now. It doesn't doesn't last forever.
Make the thing do the thing and stop worrying about how it was made. None of your code will be around in 200 years.
I can already envision the contribution guidelines. You must install cameras all around you, like when taking a certification exam, and have them record you typing it all out, eye tracking included.
Only to then still get accused of "cheating" through I don't know, doing it all head of time with AI help, practicing the solution, and then just re-enacting it all.
--------
[0] Now, who thinks I wrote that “not as … but as …” part fully by hand and who thinks an LLM wrote it for me?!
this sentiment is also very funny considering the subject matter is reimplementing coLinux, which no one uses anymore, except as a toy, for an operating system no one uses anymore, except as a toy.
Also electronic music, now that I think about it. Or sorry, electronic "music", as it used to be written.
https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/comments/1tcsjsg/someone_on_...
Can you elaborate? I’m honestly unsure what you’re suggesting she said, because I can imagine entirely contradictory scenarios.
I'm very curious what you think the alternative might have been given all this extremely on the nose context.
She wasn't dismissive of digital-airbrushing; instead, the reasons for us not doing any digital-art in art class are the ones you'd reasonably expect:
1. The #1 reason is cost: in money, time, training, et cetera: physical hardware purchases, Photoshop or Painter licenses - and needing to keep those renewed - sending all the art teaching staff away for training on the software and digital-painting technique themselves - and more besides.
2. Art, as taught in middle-schools/lower-secondary-schools to children - not working professional adults - is concerned with breadth, not depth: digital-painting is a specific and narrow technique when compared to the applicability of teaching art-theory things like perspective, shading, etc.
3. The practical and technical aspects of producing visual-arts, including on a computer, are already taught in the elective graphic-design class in upper-secondary (while our lower-secondary art class was mandatory); she could probably tell that I was motivated more by my ego-driven need to demonstrate my own 1337 Photoshop skillz to others than any actual belief I had that everyone in the British economy needs exposure to Wacom and Photoshop and receives training so they can all have their own DeviantArt account.
-----------
So now, in the event that some kids' art teachers or others are being broadly dismissive of digital-painting then they're likely pointing to the impracticality of it being a taught subject in mandatory education in public schools - and not that it's any "less" of an artform. Instead, I think it's worth comparing digital-painting to its own predecessor in (real-life) airbrush painting: just like digital-painting it requires its own hardware (think: expensive); while it can produce unique eye-catching results doing-so requires extensive practice; and is just as impractical to teach to large (25-30+) sized groups of kids en-masse; and won't help you appreciate a Monet or Renoir any more than a semester learning Photoshop would.
If memory serves me right, the context was me going on a tangent about my interests, which is when I mentioned digital painting and asked her if she has any experience with it.
It was overwhelmingly clear to me that she was absolutely thinking less of it as an artform, and not just skeptical about the practicality of its classroom adoption or similar. I really don't think such a thought even occurred to her.
There is of course a chance I misunderstood, but based on how I remember her, I don't really have a reason to doubt myself in this way. She generally had a holier-than-thou quality across the board, separately from her intentions.
I'm getting really sick of this. I've had to deal with it in the AI art world for three years now (where actual practitioners are using the AI tools - big surprise, right?) Now it's finally seeping into software engineering.
This is a useless opinion. Most employers will only hire for AI coding now. Most code will be AI generated.
You need to start focusing on how you can create value in the new world. We aren't dealing with punch cards anymore.
If "junk code" pisses you off so much, you ought to look at your own DNA.
Meanwhile people are creating garbage with "ai" tools. I wish them the best of luck with their shit.
The only thing performative around here is all you assholes evangelizing this worthless shit.