[flagged]

ragequittah 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

I imagine this same argument happening when people stopped using machine code and assembly en masse and started using FORTRAN or COBOL. You don't really know what you're doing unless you're spending the effort I spent!

▲

spankibalt 4 days ago | parent [-]

> "I imagine this same argument happening when people stopped using machine code and assembly en masse and started using FORTRAN or COBOL."

Yeah, certainly. But since this has nothing to do with my argument, which was an answer to the very existential question of a (postulated) non-coder, and not a comment on a forgotten pissing contest between coders, it's utterly irrelevant.

▲

framapotari 4 days ago | parent [-]

This is quite funny when you created the pissing contest between "coders" and "non-coders" in this thread. Those labels seem very important to you.

▲

spankibalt 4 days ago | parent [-]

I didn't "create" the pissing contest, I merely pointed it out in someone else's drivel.

And of course, these labels are important to me for (precise) language defines the boundaries of my world; coder vs. non-coder, medico vs. quack, writer vs. analphabet, truth vs. lie, etc. Elementary.

▲

cthalupa 3 days ago | parent [-]

I find it quite interesting that you categorize non-coders the same as quacks, analphabets, and lies.

I would never consider myself a coder - though I can and have written quite a lot of code over the years - because it has always been a means to the ends for me. I don't particularly enjoy writing code. Programming isn't a passion. I can and have built working programs without a line of copy and pasted code off stack overflow or using an LLM. Because I needed to to solve a problem.

But there are things I would call myself, things I do and enjoy and am good at. But I wouldn't position people who can't do those things as being the same as a quack.

You also claim to not be the one that started the pissing contest, but you called someone who claims to have written plenty of code themselves a coding-illiterate just because now they'd rather use an LLM than do it themselves. I suppose you could claim they are lying about it, or some no true scottsman type argument, but that seems silly.

You basically took some people talking about their own opinions on what they find enjoyable, and saying that AI-driven coding scratches that itch for them even more than writing code itself does, and then began to be quite hostile towards them with boatloads of denigrating language and derision.

	▲	spankibalt 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		> "I find it quite interesting that you categorize non-coders the same as quacks, analphabets, and lies." I categorized them not as "the same", but as examples of concept-delineating polar opposites. This as answer to somebody who essentially trotted out the "but they're just labels!1!!" line, which was already considered intellectually lazy before it was turned into a sad meme by people who married their bongs back in the 90s. > "I would never consider myself a coder - though I can and have written quite a lot of code over the years [...]" Good for you. A coder, to me, is simply somebody who can produce working programs on their own and has the neccessary occupational (self-) respect. This fans out into several degrees of capabilities, of course. > "[...] but you called someone who claims to have written plenty of code themselves a coding-illiterate just because now they'd rather use an LLM than do it themselves. " No. I simply answered this one question: > “If I’m not the man who can [...] build working programs… WHO AM I?” Aside from that I reflected on an insulting(ly daft) but extremely common attitude amongst sloperators, especially on parasocial media platforms: > "As it turns out, writing code isn’t super useful." Imagine I go to some other SIG to say shit like this: As it turns out, [reading and writing words/playing or operating an instrument or tool/drawing/calculating/...] isn’t "super useful". Suckers! I'd expect to get properly mocked and then banned. > "You basically took some people talking about their own opinions on what they find enjoyable, [...]" Congratulations, you're just the next strawmen salesman. For the last time, bambini: I don't care if this guy uses LLMs and enjoys it... for that was never the focus of my argument at all.

▲

jtbayly 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You definitely completely misconstrued what was said and meant.

It appears you have yet to grapple with the question asked. And I suspect you would be helped by doing so. Let me restate the question for you:

If actually writing code can be done without you or any coworker now, by AI, what is your purpose?

	▲	4 days ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]

▲

ch4s3 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Anyone who can’t read Proust and write a compelling essay about the themes is illiterate!

▲

spankibalt 4 days ago | parent [-]

One day you actually might discover there's different levels of literacy. Like there's something between 0 and 255!

Here's a pointer: Not being able to read (terminus technicus: analphabet) makes you a non-reader, just as not being able to cobble together a working proggie on your own merits makes you a non-coder. Man alive...

▲

ch4s3 4 days ago | parent [-]

That’s quite literally my point.

▲

spankibalt 4 days ago | parent [-]

[flagged]

	▲	ch4s3 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		what do you think I meant?

▲

jimbokun 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

It’s possible to be someone who’s very good at writing quality programs but still enjoy delegating as much of that as possible to AI to focus on other things.

▲

spankibalt 4 days ago | parent [-]

> "It’s possible to be someone who’s very good at writing quality programs but still enjoy delegating as much of that as possible to AI to focus on other things."

That's true, Jimbo. And besides the point, because:

1. It wasn't about someone who's very good at writing quality programs, but someone who perceives themselves as someone who "is not the man who can build working programs". Do you comprehend the difference?

2. The enjoyment of using slopware wasn't part of the argument (see my answer to the question). That's not something I remotely care about. For the question my answer referred to, please see the cited text before the question mark. <3

3. People who define the very solution to the problem as "isn't super useful" do at least two things:

They misunderstood, or misunderstand, their capabilities in problem solving/solutions, and most likely (have) delude(d) themselves, and...

They look down on people who actually have done, do, and will do the legwork to solve these very problems ("Your work isn't super useful"). Back in the day we called 'em lamers and/or posers.

I hope that clears things up.

	▲	cthalupa 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		> 1. It wasn't about someone who's very good at writing quality programs, but someone who perceives themselves as someone who "is not the man who can build working programs". Do you comprehend the difference? For someone who has taken heavy enjoyment in likening people to analphabets you seem to have entirely misunderstood (or if you understood, heavily misconstrued) the initial point of the person you are responding to. The entire point is that their identity WAS someone who is the man who can build those programs, and now AI was threatening to do the same thing. Unless you a presupposing that anyone who can be happy with the output of LLMs for writing code simply is impossible of having the ability to write quality code themselves. Which would be silly.