| 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! |
| |
| ▲ | 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. |
|
|
|
|
