| >They are if you define them as such. If a compiler counts as AI then so does literally every other program out there (at least the ones with well-defined inputs and outputs). >Sure. As is natural language (e.g. criminal code). Natural language is too ambiguous and self-referential to count as a programming language, per se. While a subset of natural language can obviously be used to describe programs, we distinguish programming languages from natural languages in that they are formally defined and bound to be interpreted in one way by a machine with a relatively small amount of context (notwithstanding minor differences between implementations). Natural language has the unfortunate property of semantic drift (or whatever it's called). The sounds, spellings, meanings of words, etc. are extremely context-sensitive and unsuitable for reliably encoding computer programs or anything else over long periods of time. It is very common for a single word in a natural language to have several meanings, even contradictory meanings. >They took the higher level instructions written by the software engineers and translated that into machine code. Hence the name. Developer in the above referred to what you call software engineer. I am well aware of what you're trying to say, and the historical context, but I think you're applying modern terminology to old practices to draw a bad conclusion. >It seems your misinterpretation is down to thinking that software engineer and coder were intended to be the same person. That was not the intent. I didn't misinterpret anything. These jobs were not "intended" into existence. It just so happens that writing any kind of code is challenging enough to require its own dedicated professionals. That has always been true. >Once the job of coding went away it has become common to use those terms synonymously, but the above was clearly written about the past. The job of "coding" never went away. The type of code being written changed. The product is still CODE as in a procedure or specification encoded in a purpose-built, machine-oriented, unambiguous, socially neutral, and essentially eternal language. >Again, if you're looking for a silly semantic discussion, there is already another thread for that. It's not a silly semantic discussion, it's a serious one. You think that one can be a "software developer" merely by using natural language, and that there is historical precedent for that. But this is very wrong, especially in the historical context. By your own argument, any dumbass manager could be a "software developer" if only he found an entity to write the software for him based on natural language instructions. It matters not whether the entity generating the actual code is a human being or a machine. Since there are actual people trying to hire software developers and engineers with real skills, it is a waste of everyone's time for vibecoders to call themselves "software engineers" or "software developers" because they're not. They are JUST vibecoders. That skill set may be sufficient for... something. But stop trying to make it into something it isn't with these misleading arguments and analogies. It is slightly hilarious that this entire "silly semantic discussion" is a product of the properties of natural language. One of the massive benefits of computer languages is that you DON'T get into stupid discussions about the meanings of things very often. When you DO, it is usually because some goofball wrote a bad spec. The ambiguities and other nonsense are hammered out in the spec, and from there on the language has a concrete meaning that is not up for debate. |
| |
| ▲ | wakawaka28 2 days ago | parent [-] | | >We were talking about a system that takes a typed description of what you want as input and outputs code. There is plenty of software, even with well-defined inputs and outputs, which do not do that. You are trying to assert an equivalence between compilers and AI systems that simply does not exist. Sure, you could abuse the English language to try to elevate "vibecoding" to the level of "software engineering", and denegrate the AI to the level of a basic compiler. But the rest of us know better and won't accept that. Your line of reasoning about historical job titles and roles also fails. >But there is a particular type of software that does exactly that. We call it a compiler in my circles. Compilers don't take "descriptions" as input. They take code as input. The output is perhaps a different kind of code, but it is still code. There has never really been a software engineer or developer who wrote only imprecise English. You don't legitimately get those titles without being competent at using some kind of programming language (as opposed to natural language). >It was written to express my intent. Your (mis)interpretation does nothing to change my intent and is, frankly, irrelevant. This is exactly why natural language is unsuitable for writing software. People like you constantly try to abuse the meaning of words to manipulate people. No amount of rhetoric is going to make a vibecoder actually be a software developer or software engineer. Even if you get people to debase the English language, they'll be forced to come up with new words to describe what they actually mean when they speak of morons using AI vs people who actually know what they are doing. I hate how much time is wasted in arguments over what is a reasonable use of words and why it is not good to constantly change the meanings of words. I'm done with this conversation. I think you're just trolling us at this point. I've made my point and I'm done beating a dead horse. | | |
| ▲ | 9rx 2 days ago | parent [-] | | > You are trying to assert an equivalence between compilers and AI systems that simply does not exist. The equivalence is between typing out what you want and having a machine produce code from that and compilers. Call that "AI systems" instead of "compilers" if you want, but "AI systems" lacks precision, so I think we can eventually come to agree that compiler is more precise. Even if we don't, it is what I chose to call it. Therefore, that's what it means in the context of my comments. That is how English works. I am surprised this is news to you. > I'm done with this conversation. I know you like silly semantic debates, so is talking past everyone really a conversation? The dictionary definition indicates that there needs to be an exchange, not just taking turns writing out gobbledygook. | | |
| ▲ | wakawaka28 2 days ago | parent [-] | | You can't just leave it, huh? >The equivalence is between typing out what you want and having a machine produce code from that and compilers. Call that "AI systems" instead of "compilers" if you want, but "AI systems" lacks precision, so I think we can eventually come to agree that compiler is more precise. You are trying to assert this equivalence to ultimately assert a similar equivalence between vibecoding and software engineering. I'm not going to accept that. The analogy is about as bizarre as calling a compiler a search program. You could indeed call it that: You tell it what you are looking for, and it does something to find the matching output out of infinitely many possible outputs. But this is just as strained of an analogy. The mechanics of how each of these things works is sufficiently complex and distinct as to deserve dedicated terminology. Nothing is gained by drawing these connections, that is unless you are going to commit fraud. >Even if we don't, it is what I chose to call it. Therefore, that's what it means in the context of my comments. That is how English works. I am surprised this is news to you. It is not. I said it works that way in multiple comments to you. This type of shit is, as I said, exactly why natural language is a bad category of input for writing software. >I know you like silly semantic debates, so is talking past everyone really a conversation? The dictionary definition indicates that there needs to be an exchange, not just taking turns writing out gobbledygook. First you want to manipulate the definition of "software developer" to elevate vibecoding (the socially and industrially acceptable definition) to the same level. When I disagree with you in a series of comments, you want to redefine "conversation" to mean something else and also call my thoroughly explained rationale "gobbledygook". What you're writing isn't exactly gobbledygook, though I could easily call it that and move on. What it is is simply an incorrect argument in favor of destroying the meanings of certain well-established words. You are simply wrong from multiple angles: historical, logical, and social. We are all dumber for having heard it. You LOSE! | | |
| ▲ | 9rx 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > You are trying to assert this equivalence to ultimately assert a similar equivalence between vibecoding and software engineering. I don't know what vibecoding is, but from past context and your arbitrary thoughts about about using natural language for writing software that came from out the blue, I am going to guess that you are referring to the aforementioned talk about criminal code. That is the only time we said anything about natural language previously. That should have been obviously seen as a tangent, but since it appears you didn't pick up on that, what do you think criminal code and software have to do with each other? | | |
| ▲ | wakawaka28 2 days ago | parent [-] | | There is no way you don't know what vibecoding is. I don't believe you. As we both know, the AI we are talking about uses natural language as input. To address the ridiculous connections you are trying to make, I am forced to distinguish natural languages from programming languages. You might like to overlook the vast differences between programming languages and natural languages to try to support your point. But those differences are major supporting details in my arguments. You can call this additional information "getting off on a tangent" to try to throw shade on me, but you're wrong. >what do you think criminal code and software have to do with each other? I'm not the one that brought this up, you did. I think that although criminal law is written in a largely procedural way, there are many differences between criminal law and writing software. I would not call a law maker a "software engineer" even though both are concerned with writing procedures of some kind. The critical distinctions are that law is written in natural language and is malleable according to social factors, regardless of what it literally says. Even if we build actual machines to enforce the law and programmed them in plain English or even a programming language built for it, interpretation of the law would still necessarily be subject to social factors. Those same differences between, say, law written in natural language and computer programs written in code, apply to practically all natural language input given to an AI or a software engineer versus actual code that a compiler or interpreter can process. Therefore, uninformed people who use AI to generate code are not "software developers" and the AI is not a "compiler". No natural language is a programming language. And now we have come full circle. No historical or logical rationale can justify redefining "software developer" or "software engineer" to include someone who has no knowledge of computer programming in the pre-AI sense. | | |
| ▲ | 9rx 2 days ago | parent [-] | | > There is no way you don't know what vibecoding is. I'm old. I don't keep up with the kids. Maybe the kids have changed what a compiler is too. Is that the point of contention here? If so, that's pretty silly. When I write "compiler" it means what I mean it to mean, not what some arbitrary kid I've never met thinks it means. How can someone use a word in a way that they don't even know exists? > As we both know, the AI we are talking about uses natural language as input. That is not what I am talking about. Did you press the wrong reply button? That would explain your deep confusion. | | |
| ▲ | wakawaka28 2 days ago | parent [-] | | >I'm old. I don't keep up with the kids. Maybe the kids have changed what a compiler is too. No, this all started because you asserted that compilers are equivalent to AI. Being old is not really an excuse for pulling the rhetorical stunts you've been pulling like calling someone you've never met an "arbitrary kid"... As a matter of fact, I'm old too. This is where I started replying to you, I think: >It's not exactly wrong. Not since the advent of AI systems (a.k.a. compilers) have developers had to worry about code. Instead they type in what they want and the compiler generates the code for them.
>
>Well, except developers have never had to worry about code as even in the pre-compiler days coders, a different job done by a different person, were responsible for producing the code. Development has always been about writing down what you want and letting someone or something else generate the code for you.
>
>But the transition from human coders to AI coders happened like, what, 60-70 years ago? Not sure why this is considered newsworthy now. There are multiple issues with this comment that I have outlined in my other comments. It is so wrong, like all your other replies to me, that I think you're trolling me. >That is not what I am talking about. Did you press the wrong reply button? That would explain your deep confusion. This whole thread and the post itself is very much about what AI is and how it's used. | | |
| ▲ | 9rx 2 days ago | parent [-] | | > No, this all started because you asserted that compilers are equivalent to AI. I asserted that typing in what you want and feeding it into something that outputs code is that something being a compiler. Call that AI if you want, but I've always known that to be a compiler. Again, I'm old, so maybe terms are changing and I'm not in touch with that. I don't know. I'm not sure I care. Logically, "compiler" when used in my writings means what I intend it to mean. It makes no difference what others think it means. Compilers are not equivalent to AI as, at least in my day, AI is a field of computer science, not any specific type of tool. But compilers are typically designed as rule-based “expert systems”, which traditionally has fallen under the AI umbrella. Well, unless you are in the "its only AI if I don't understand it" camp. In which case nothing is AI in any meaningful sense. Not that it matters as "compiler" always used to refer to the functionality, not how it is implemented. If you built a C compiler that used neural nets, it would still be a compiler. If you built a C compiler based on mechanical turk it would still be a compiler. We call(ed) it a compiler because of what it does, not how it works beneath the sheets. > There are multiple issues with this comment that I have outlined in my other comments. It seems you found multiple issues based on the false premise of "typing in what you want" referring to natural language, but I wasn't talking about natural language. I was talking about programming languages. That is what you do with programming languages: You type in what you want, pass it to a compiler, and it generates code. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
|
|
