Comment by closewith
3 hours ago
> So yeah, I know pretty well what I’m talking about. Helping others is an explicit goal of mine that I derive satisfaction from. I’d never describe it as “delivering value/solutions”, that’s vague corporate soulless speech.
While I commend your voluntary efforts, I don't think it lends any more weight to your original comment. In fact, I think this comment highlights a deep cynicism and I think a profound misunderstanding of the internal motivations of others and why "delivering value" resonates with others, but rings hollow to you.
In the end, this debate is less about LLMs, and more about how different developers identify. If you consider software to be a craft, then mastery of the skillset, discipline, and authorship of the code is key to you.
If you consider software to be a means to an end, then the importance lies in the impact the software has on others, irrespective to how it's produced.
While you are clearly in the former camp, it is undeniable that impact is determined entirely by what the software enables for others, not by how it was produced. Most users never see the code, never care how it was written, and judge it only by whether it solves their problem.
You’re failing to understand the complaint is about the hollow term being used to sound grandiose.
A street sweeper “delivers value” in the form of a clean street. A lunch lady at a school “delivers solutions” in the form of reducing hunger in children.
There’s nothing wrong with wanting to do something for others, the criticism is of the vague terminology. The marketing speak. I’ve said that so many times, I’d hope that’d been clear.
> While you are clearly in the former camp
You’re starting from wrong assumptions. No, I’m not “in the former camp”, I find the whole premise to be a false dichotomy to begin with. Reality is a spectrum, not a binary choice. It’s perfectly congruent to believe a great product for customers is the goal, and that the way to achieve it is through care and deliberate attention to the things you do.
> You’re failing to understand the complaint is about the hollow term being used to sound grandiose.
This isn’t a critique of language - it’s a category error. You’re confusing the mechanism with the purpose.
In your examples, a street sweeper or lunch lady (Google says this is an antiquated US term for canteen worker?) do indeed deliver value, clean streets and nourished students. That's the value they're paid to provide. Those are the outcomes we care about, and whether the sweeper uses a broom or Bucher Citycat is only of interest in that one allows the sweeper to provide more value at lower cost, eg more metres of clean road per dollar.
The same is true of the canteen worker, who may use Rationales and bains marie to serve more hot meals at lower cost than cooking each meal individually.
> You don’t “deliver solutions”, you write software (or have it written for you).
Saying you "write software", not deliver solutions actually indicates that you don't understand the profession you're in. It mistakes the process for the outcome. Writing code is one means among many for achieving an outcome, and if the same outcome could be achieved by the business without software, the software would be dropped instantly. Not because care doesn’t matter, but because the purpose was never the code itself.
> It’s perfectly congruent to believe a great product for customers is the goal, and that the way to achieve it is through care and deliberate attention to the things you do.
But according to you, care and deliberate attention (software as craft) are the only way. An absolutist position. But most software that matters is imperfect, build over time, touched by many hands, and full of compromises. Yet it still delivers enormous value. That’s evidence that outcomes, not purity of process, is what delivers value and defines success in the real world.
> But according to you, care and deliberate attention (software as craft) are the only way. An absolutist position.
No! That is not what I’m saying! How can you argue my position is an absolute when I just explicitly described it as a spectrum?!
However, I do believe you’re arguing in good faith, I just don’t think we’re on the same page. I wish we were, as while I think we might still disagree, I also believe we’d have an interesting conversation. Probably more so in person.
Unfortunately, I have to go get some work done so I’m unable to continue as of now. Still, instead of leaving you hanging, I wanted to thank you for the respectful conversation as well as your patience and I believe genuine effort in trying to understand my position.