Thread

1. Schnitz · 1785984517 · focus · HN ↗

   Because people that enjoy programming for programming's sake don't want an LLM to do the programming for them - isn't it obvious? It's just like with any other hobby, people who like car racing created rules that force you to drive yourself, even though they'd get faster lap times with electronic driver aids. People who enjoy grappling created rules that force you to grapple, even though striking could win a fight faster. People that enjoy chess don't allow you to bring a computer to the chess table. The list is endless and the people that enjoy programming will create rules that force you to program, why shouldn't they? It's their hobby.

   1. brookst · 1785992005 · focus · HN ↗

      This is true, but as usual nobody can agree on what "doing it yourself" means.

      Few cars are manual steering, manual brakes, manual transmission.

      Few grappling bodies go all Greek-naked.

      Few chess bodies forbid researching previous games or your opponent.

      The list is indeed endless, and every single person thinks they are using just the right amount of assistance; anything less is pointlessly difficult, anything more is cheating that takes the sport out.

      Me, I've been a hobbyist programmer since youth (6502 assembly, represent). I'm having a blast "writing" software without touching a line of code. Sure, I'm old, and maybe I'm like those guys blasting Veyrons through highways, relying on traction control and all the computers to let me drive beyond my abilities. And... ok? I'm having fun, even if I'm not doing it right, by random anonymous peoples' views.

      1. NoboruWataya · 1786007045 · focus · HN ↗

         One of the great things about hobbies is that you can enjoy them whatever way you want. But honestly is it not more accurate to say that you are now a hobbyist prompter, rather than a hobbyist programmer? I get the "its just a tool" mentality and I guess LLMs can be used that way, but if you are not touching a line of code yourself then it seems less analogous to using power steering and more analogous to just taking a taxi.

         1. Ekaros · 1786010490 · focus · HN ↗

            What I really don't understand how differently it seems that AI for programming and for anything else is treated.

            I don't think there is insignificant group who would say that using LLM to write a book does not make you an author. Or make a song musician. Or draw a picture a painter or artist.

            This just somewhat baffles me... Or maybe the LLM for programming people all believe that you are as much artist if you use AI in those fields and the product generates as such is as if not more valuable than one by more traditional means.

            1. TwoFerMaggie · 1786014730 · focus · HN ↗

               A renowned author would still write. They don't suddenly start managing a team of junior writers and instructs them how to write.

               A programmer that has climbed up the ladder in their field, on the other hand, often stopped coding themselves. Instead, they manage others who code, or provide vision/direction on the project.

               I think it really depends on what people on the senior level of your field do. If they mostly move to managerial roles, then it's much more likely they'd embrace LLM.

               Ironically I observe this in academia too. Professors (who often stopped doing hands-on research, but only provide guidance to postdocs and grad students in their research) tend to embrace LLM more than the fields you mentioned.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.