Born Against, or why hobby programming communities are against LLM usage
Thread
Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.
Born Against, or why hobby programming communities are against LLM usage
Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.
alkonaut · · focus · HN ↗
1) You figure out what problem to solve.
2) You figure out HOW to solve the problem.
3) You actually implement the solution.
4) You see the solution work, for yourself.
5) You ship/deploy/publish the program. This means you see people be happy users and/or you get paid for it and so on.
If you're an entrepreneur type, you probably enjoy the first and last steps most, and you see steps 2-4 as mostly a chore. If you're a tinkerer, you don't care much for 1 and 5, and you see 2-4 as the whole point of programming. I'm a tinkerer. I'd be happy to just write code and throw it away. Coding is like solving sudokus. I could skip steps 1 and 5 forever. I don't ever need to show any code to anyone. In fact, most of the time when programming I do steps 2 and 3 and even skip 4. I don't even finish! I work weeks on something until I lose interest, and I know that in order to even run it, it would be several more weeks. A PoC is enough. Or just a half one. It's just code-to-structure-thoughts, not to create anything finished.
The 5 phases look kind of symmetric. The outermost layer (1 and 5) are the entrepreneurial steps. If you're a product owner or CEO, you might work strictly at steps 1,5. Then steps 2-4 are the managerial/architectural steps. If you're a very senior IC at a large company, you might work at this level, without actually doing much coding. Only the inner most step (3) is the manual creation of source code. Even though it's 5 different phases, it's just "3 layers" of programming.
The problem as I see it is that I enjoy step 3. And LLMs are good at step 3 almost exclusively. So they just pick the best bit of this dish, and leave me with the rest.
If you're an entrepreneurial type, the LLM appears to take the _worst_ bit of the work from you. Great.
shiomiru · · focus · HN ↗
Now there is a plagiarism machine built on top of decades of this work that seemingly solves 3 and promises to solve 2 (badly, but usually this matters little), the programmers that (indirectly) helped build it are told they're fools for doing so, and threatened by losing their status if they don't adapt to the "entrepreneurial way" (well, the full promise is "you'll lose it anyway, but if you cooperate in stuffing sama's pockets then maybe you get to keep it a bit longer").
So what really surprises me is not that people are upset but that so few are.
pigpop · · focus · HN ↗
rayiner · · focus · HN ↗
pigpop · · focus · HN ↗
ambicapter · · focus · HN ↗
dctoedt · · focus · HN ↗
Having also done both: Lawyers who like to tinker with words include contract drafters and litigation counsel, plus lobbyists trying to influence draft legislation and regulations. Such tinkering can fuck things up more often and at greater scale — e.g., by inflicting compulsory burdens and costs on others — than can most programmers.
In legal drafting work, there's less systematic pre-release testing before the equivalent of a "program" is loosed upon the world. There's not much in the way of counterparts to software unit testing and regression testing, partly because legal-drafting clients prefer that their lawyers keep costs down.
I'm not-infrequently dismayed by the quality of the contracts I review for clients because of the "tinkering with words" by the lawyers on the other side of the deal. Back when I did IP litigation, I was sometimes likewise dismayed by the bullshit arguments that some lawyers felt free to make in their court papers because what the hell, the worst that can happen is the judge says no. And as mostly a law professor these days, I review court opinions all the time and am regularly amazed how judges (and their law clerks, such as Rayiner used to be) can be so patient in responding to such arguments.