← Back to context

Comment by axutio

4 hours ago

Would you also say that "someone who wants to use an IDE / LSP features to code and not give credit to the IDE / LSP is the worst kind of person"? If not, what is the difference between the two for you?

14 comments

axutio

Reply
dylan604  4 hours ago

one wrote code while the other is used by meatbags to write code. why is this example always marched out like it means something?

  • zahlman  4 hours ago

    > one wrote code while the other is used by meatbags to write code.

    One is not a "meatbag" while the other is not a "meatbag". And no, outputting something on stdout that happens to function as code is not "writing" it in the sense that we actually care about here. That's conflating the metaphor we use in describing program behaviour with the actual "meatbag" activity.

    > why is this example always marched out like it means something?

    Because it obviously does.

  • LPisGood  4 hours ago

    Almost all ways of creating programs are effectively just using tools to produce code. Compiling, transpiling, interpreting byte code, etc.

    • dylan604  4 hours ago

      again, that's not what we are talking about here. we have humans writing code using an IDE. we have LLMs generating code that is placed in the IDE. why are people obtuse to this? why are bots obtuse to this?

      1 reply →

palmotea  4 hours ago

> Would you also say that "someone who wants to use an IDE / LSP features to code and not give credit to the IDE / LSP is the worst kind of person"?

That's a false equivalency.

> If not, what is the difference between the two for you?

Let's start this out right: if they're equivalent, first you explain to us why you think so.

  • zahlman  4 hours ago

    > That's a false equivalency.

    How is it false?

    > Let's start this out right: if they're equivalent, first you explain to us why you think so.

    I think it should be really obvious how they're equivalent: both are the result of a program running on a computer, and not the result of in-the-moment cognition by a moral agent or moral patient. Of course the LLM is just a tool. Models can literally be downloaded as ordinary files. There is not some threshold to cross where some configurations of bits on a disk deserve "credit" for work and others do not.

    • palmotea  4 hours ago

      > I think it should be really obvious how they're equivalent: both are the result of a program running on a computer...

      In fact it's really obvious everything is equivalent: it's all just matter and energy!

      > Of course the LLM is just a tool. Models can literally be downloaded as ordinary files. There is not some threshold to cross where some configurations of bits on a disk deserve "credit" for work and others do not.

      Of course there is such a threshold. And it's definitely been crossed when the "tool" can operate autonomously or nearly so, when it can generate the "creation" with minimal operator input or understanding.

      Your classic IDE can't do anything without the detailed control of its operator. It's nothing like a coding agent.

  • axutio  4 hours ago

    I just don't agree that it's a false equivalency. I see them both as "tools I use to get the job done". For me, the job is not "writing code" - it is "deliver feature", "fix bug", and the accountability, responsibility, and communication that comes with it.