Hacker News Reader

Comment by wmichelin | Hacker News Reader

I enjoy building things. I do not enjoy the act typing out code by hand.

> Do you not enjoy coding? I'm not trying to be snarky, just a genuine question

To follow this debate through, to maximize coding enjoyment, shouldn't we be avoiding compilers? They take away a lot of the code we need to write. Frameworks as well?

View on HN

I don't think the joy of coding comes simply from writing lots of code. It's the act of precisely expressing one's internal thoughts into an physical medium, and watching it take effect. Using AI as an intermediary makes it less enjoyable. It's like a painter telling his speedy assistant what he wants to paint, and reviewing every attempt until it looks like what he was aiming for. Obviously the painter won't find that as fulfilling and meaningful. And a skilled painter probably won't be quite as happy as if they'd done it personally. The act of painting is a primary driver, not just having a finished painting at the end.

The problem with your argument is that it's the same argument machine coders used against high level languages :)

High level languages are analogous to airbrushes or paint rollers, not assistants. They let you paint faster, at the cost of making some things impossible that you would be able to do with a fine paintbrush. Unlike the assistant/LLM, they do not make artistic decisions for you, and their behavior is predictable.

That's your interpretation after being used to high level languages. The assembly purists were not happy back in the days and made the same/similar arguments.

Yes and no. I think it's perfectly legitimate for someone to enjoy coding in assembly but not Python. And if someone comes over and talks about how much faster they can build things in C, it's fair enough for them to question whether that person had enjoyed writing assembly in the first place.

Aside: there's a clip on YouTube of Linus responding to someone asking if he'd consider using other languages for Linux. His response is that he likes to be close to the metal, and he likes C because you can look at C code and know well enough what the compiled assembly code will look like. You can't really say that with LLMs. You can understand C and you can understand the prompt for building a program in C which will achieve xyz. But you can't actually know what the output of the prompt will look like.

Idk, when you have nothing to prove just let the assistant do it. As the painter I can give direction then take a nap since I'm not getting any younger.

Compilers don't take away the code we need to write; they translate it into a different formal language that emphasizes and de-emphasizes various aspects of its meaning.

LLMs are categorically a different thing. Instead of soundly translating between formal languages, they adjust how you interact with the formal language.

The enjoyment people get from coding has absolutely nothing to do with the pure volume of code they produce, to the point that this has long been a cliche!

> LLMs are categorically a different thing. Instead of soundly translating between formal languages, they adjust how you interact with the formal language.

Yeah, equating LLMs with compilers is sloppy thinking (though, I'm sure some sloppy thinkers will defend to death). It's an over-eager pattern match, not everything that takes input and produces output is the same kind of thing.

I bet in our new AI utopia, we'll get more sloppy thinking. All kinds of people will be talking about how they used to think, but now they "no longer have to do it."

I usually like to write elegant code using Python and frameworks like Django.

The pleasure comes from the "the only right lines of code" instead of "the most lines of code".

Thanks for the honesty and I think I get it. The AI doing the code leap frogs you to a finished product which is the reward. I do worry about craftmanship in that scenario though.

The finished product alone does not have to be the reward. The reward can still be building a great tool, a great application, etc. With AI we can build it 100x faster, freeing us up to think deeper about our test coverage, our design, our scaling, our observability.

There is no excuse for lazy execution using AI, that is, IMO, equivalent to shoddy software engineering. it's just faster and more accessible now. "AI slop" is just poor execution delivered more quickly.

The onus is still on the human in the drivers seat to deliver quality outcomes.

How can building an application feel like a reward when you're not the one who built it?

And before you post the obvious response, no, if you're truly "100x faster", you're not reading or even thinking about anything the AI is outputting. The time math doesn't add up.

You seem to have a narrow definition of "build it". LLMs don't have agency. If I build software using an LLM I built it. Just like if I build a house out of lumber from a lumber mill, I built it even though I didn't hand carve the 2x4s.

Now, what if you order a construction crew for building your house? What if you also hire an architect to design the plan? And an overseer who manages everything?

Surely at some point you would stop saying "I built this house", even if you ordered and financed it?

This is getting a bit off-topic, but there are certainly people who will still say that they built it. That is, in a nutshell, how people try to reconcile desert theory with the existence of the super-wealthy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com