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. Schnitz · 1785996740 · focus · HN ↗

         > I'm having a blast "writing" software without touching a line of code.

         And that’s totally fine, enjoy your hobby however you enjoy it best. Most people programming by hand for fun don’t care that you program with an LLM for fun. The problems come when those two worlds collide, like in the linked GitHub issue, in chess engine leaderboards. In the long run for both groups to have their fun and friendly competition you’ll need two separate leaderboards. This is also very common in other hobbies. In racing there are car classes so that your Veyron and someone’s old Miata don’t go head to head. In combat sports there’s weight classes. Most sports separate amateurs and pros. Usually there is respect across the group boundaries and appreciation for the other groups deeply specialized skill. There’s even the concept of cross training to get better in your flavor of a sport. This will be figured out with programming as well.

         1. brookst · 1786021670 · focus · HN ↗

            Sure, I agree, and it’s already figured out. The demoscene has been around for decades. That’s real programming.

            But I think you’re on to something important: framing programming as a competition of intrinsic skill where rules are necessary to equalize. That’s certainly true in some cases, and more power to those who enjoy it.

            I guess I’m just more of a product guy these days, where the equalizer is the market and the consumers rather than the implementation methodology.

            1. irishcoffee · 1786037519 · focus · HN ↗

               You never went to a programming competition in school? None of what was said is novel, it’s all been around forever, the tricky bit is the regurgitation software mucking everything up.

               Not that it’s about me, but I was doing programming competitions 25 years ago, half of which were on paper with no keyboard allowed.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.