Comment by blitz_skull
4 days ago
This 1000x!
I had a bit of an identity crisis with AI first landed and started producing good code. “If I’m not the man who can type quickly, accurately, and build working programs… WHO AM I?”
But as you pointed out, I quickly realized I was never that guy. I was the guy who made problems go away, usually with code.
Now I can make so many problems go away, it feels like cheating. As it turns out, writing code isn’t super useful. It’s the application of the code, the judgement of which problems to solve and how to solve them, that truly mattered.
And that sparks a LOT of joy.
[flagged]
I imagine this same argument happening when people stopped using machine code and assembly en masse and started using FORTRAN or COBOL. You don't really know what you're doing unless you're spending the effort I spent!
> "I imagine this same argument happening when people stopped using machine code and assembly en masse and started using FORTRAN or COBOL."
Yeah, certainly. But since this has nothing to do with my argument, which was an answer to the very existential question of a (postulated) non-coder, and not a comment on a forgotten pissing contest between coders, it's utterly irrelevant.
:(
4 replies →
You definitely completely misconstrued what was said and meant.
It appears you have yet to grapple with the question asked. And I suspect you would be helped by doing so. Let me restate the question for you:
If actually writing code can be done without you or any coworker now, by AI, what is your purpose?
Anyone who can’t read Proust and write a compelling essay about the themes is illiterate!
One day you actually might discover there's different levels of literacy. Like there's something between 0 and 255!
Here's a pointer: Not being able to read (terminus technicus: analphabet) makes you a non-reader, just as not being able to cobble together a working proggie on your own merits makes you a non-coder. Man alive...
3 replies →
It’s possible to be someone who’s very good at writing quality programs but still enjoy delegating as much of that as possible to AI to focus on other things.
> "It’s possible to be someone who’s very good at writing quality programs but still enjoy delegating as much of that as possible to AI to focus on other things."
That's true, Jimbo. And besides the point, because:
1. It wasn't about someone who's very good at writing quality programs, but someone who perceives themselves as someone who "is not the man who can build working programs". Do you comprehend the difference?
2. The enjoyment of using slopware wasn't part of the argument (see my answer to the question). That's not something I remotely care about. For the question my answer referred to, please see the cited text before the question mark. <3
3. People who define the very solution to the problem as "isn't super useful" do at least two things:
They misunderstood, or misunderstand, their capabilities in problem solving/solutions, and most likely (have) delude(d) themselves, and...
They look down on people who actually have done, do, and will do the legwork to solve these very problems ("Your work isn't super useful"). Back in the day we called 'em lamers and/or posers.
I hope that clears things up.
1 reply →