| |
| ▲ | duckmysick 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | In any activity you can take shortcuts that makes it easier. It's up to you how many (if any) you want. Take woodworking for example. When I build a kitchen cabinet, I can get lumber that's already smooth and treated, I can buy drawer tracks, I can use power tools instead of a handsaw and a screwdriver, I can use a pocket hole jig to make joints easier. I still have to do more planning and assembling than with the Ikea cabinet, which also takes more work than having a contractor do everything for me. I'm doing it my way because it's fun for me. Other people might enjoy other parts of the process - or different things altogether. There's a whole spectrum between doing everything from scratch and paying someone to have it done for you. | | | |
| ▲ | satvikpendem 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I don't understand the question. For one thing I use local models mainly, but even if I didn't, I'd be buying the tokens from cloud model providers, not the prepackaged, fully complete software itself. I buy the tokens to make what I want. It's actually quite similar to buying the services of a programmer off Upwork to build something for me, only with LLMs it's way cheaper and faster, with a shorter feedback loop. | | |
| ▲ | slopinthebag an hour ago | parent [-] | | I think their point is that you aren't really doing the implementing, Claude (or any model really) is. If you genuinely find prompting LLMs to be fun, then by all means go for it. | | |
| ▲ | satvikpendem 34 minutes ago | parent [-] | | What I find fun is getting the output to exactly what I want. I don't care whether I'm personally implementing something or not, and that's what many in this thread seem not to understand. | | |
| ▲ | unknownfuture 31 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I'm just gonna hop in and say: I get it. If I spend a weekend standing up a self-hosted media system or something, I doubt anyone would dispute that's a fun building exercise. If I do the same thing but use an LLM to build out instead, somehow it's not. Yeah it's not the same kind of building as what we might have done pre-LLM but it need not be any less satisfying or rewarding. The real disconnect seems to be the classic dichotomy: people who see coding as the point and the purpose, vs people who just want an outcome. And that's fine! I'm just don't understand why the one camp feels the need to deride the other. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | unknownfuture 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Interesting that you think building is just coding. What do you think architects do? Or interior designers? Or civil engineers? | | |
| ▲ | ori_b an hour ago | parent [-] | | Interesting that you think coding just typing. Code is just a language where the problem is specified in fine detail; the biggest value proposition of an LLM is being able to hand-wave and let some other tool take care of guessing at detail, where you can't be bothered to specify it in full. And, part of the process of specifying in full forces you to rethink design assumptions. Architecture certainly isn't building, and neither is interior design. Civil engineers calculate and specify the loads in excruciating detail, because if they didn't, people would die. | | |
| ▲ | unknownfuture 21 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | No, coding is the act of reifying all the things that actually matter--the requirements, the visual design, the system design, etc--into a form that a computer can execute. The biggest value proposition of an LLM is being able to focus on the truly high-value activities while allowing the machine take care of much of that reification. That you think architecture or interior design isn't building tells you prefer to downplay or devalue any work that isn't hands on construction. It's an interesting perspective, but it's one I'll never be able to understand or agree with. | |
| ▲ | an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
|
