"I automatically programmed it" doesn't really roll off the tongue, nor does it make much sense - I reckon we need a better term.

It certainly quicker (and at times, more fun!) to develop this way, that is for certain.

▲

antirez 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You will say I programmed it, there is no longer for this distinction. But then you can add that you used automatic programming in the process. But shortly there will be no need to refer to this term similarly to how today you don't specify you used an editor...

	▲	baq 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I like to think that the prompt is dark magic and the outputs are conjured. I get to feel like a wizard.
	▲	Imustaskforhelp 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		(Yes?) but the editor isn't claiming to take your job in 5 years. Also I do feel like this is a very substantial leap. This is sort of like the difference between some and many. Your editor has some effect on the final result so crediting it/mentioning it doesn't really impact it (but people still do mention their editor choices and I know some git repo's with .vscode which can show that the creator used vscode, I am unfamiliar if the same might be true for other editors too) But especially in AI, the difference is that I personally feel like its doing many/most work. It's literally writing the code which turns into the binary which runs on machine while being a black box. I don't really know because its something that I am contradicted about too but I just want to speak my mind even if it may be a little contradicted on the whole AI distinction thing which is why I wish to discuss it with ya.

▲

falloutx 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I coined the term lite coding for this after reading this article and now my chatGPT has convinced me that I am a genius

▲

sesm 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

"Throwaway prototype" - that's the traditional term for this.