That doesn't seem like a great take on this. You seem to be implying that only unemployed people choose not to use AI, and anything that doesn't use AI is a useless toy project.

There were decades of software written before modern LLMs, and a lot of people choose to hand write their software as a form of maintaining their skill. Just like people practice martial arts even though we have guns.

If you reflect on your words, you might see another side to this.

▲

qweqwe14 5 hours ago | parent [-]

> Just like people practice martial arts even though we have guns.

The whole point of martial arts is the art itself.

The point of software isn't the process of creating software (it was never about that), it's the end result, and all people care about is that the end result is good. And if you don't like that, you can choose another industry.

	▲	mariusor 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> The point of software isn't the process of creating software (it was never about that), it's the end result Just because you think that, it does not make it so.
	▲	cmrdporcupine 5 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		There are obviously multiple ways people can see the act of making software. And many at once. Profession, craft, passion, art. And the differing perspectives on that do at least in part explain a lot of the conflict here. Personally, I think "AI" use in art is an abhorrent thing that warrants a highly negative response. And when I was younger and even more pretentious than I am now, I often thought my code as some kind of "art." So I can stretch my mind to see how people who see things that way would have that same gut reaction. But many like you only see the point as being the end result, so to them this all looks like pointless theatre. One of the many dramatic things the "AI" tooling has done is to make all these divisions in perspective more obvious and more dramatic.