Explained in TFA.

> A tool is something you wield.

> Control, sensory feedback, intention, intimacy, continuous direction, expertise etc are all missing from LLM use. LLMs are not wielded. LLMs are automation.

Cameras do indeed have sensory feedback, intention, intimacy, contentious direction, expertise, etc. So TFA would indeed describe a camera as a tool, not as automation.

Note also that TFA is not romanticizing effort, rather it is putting value to expertise:

> The continuous application of technique and energy, and sensory feedback, are essential to the buildup of expertise.

▲

puppycodes 8 hours ago | parent [-]

Expertise has no inherint value. What you do with that expertise does. I can be an expert in playing monopoly, does that make it valuable? no. I can be an expert in virology but instead I watch tv and drink beer all day. It's a coorelation causation trap.

▲

runarberg 7 hours ago | parent [-]

The correlation is not a 1:1 relationship (few things in nature are).

Yes there exists a type of expertise where the value is not realized by whichever arbitrary metric you use to assign value. However having expertise is more likely to result in value added compared to not having said expertise.

For example, I am learning the guitar, I am not an expert, but the more I practice the more I approach expertise, then I can play more songs, I can play them better, resulting in me and those around me having more fun = value added.

▲

puppycodes 7 hours ago | parent [-]

The article states:

"You have traded working with the world to working for a capricious robot."

This is what i'm a critic of not having more fun. This reads to me that some people are charlatans and i'm an expert. That type of sentiment is prevalent in all sorts of creative persuits. Aside from it being factually wrong, it's just different not worse or better.

▲

runarberg 6 hours ago | parent [-]

I’m sorry, I don’t quite follow your logic.

What exactly are you a critic of? Why is this statement factually wrong (and why is the fact that it is wrong just an aside)? Why do you say trading your expertise for automation is neither better nor worse. For me—if I care about the craft—it is obviously worse.

I could have simply turned on the radio if I wanted to hear the guitar played, instead I spend an hour or more a day to acquire the necessary skills to satisfy. The latter is obviously better.

	▲	puppycodes 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Sorry you don't follow, tried my best to explain! Thats great you care about the craft. There are many kinds of craft, but just because you do your craft in a certain way doesn't make others way invalid. The latter is not obviously better, better depends on your definition of value. The definition i'm reading from the article is whether it provides value to world or to you personally and I'm just saying who cares how that is accomplished. Defining how a craft "should be done" is the trap i'm pointing out. If the making is the important part to you aka the process and the journey, thats awesome and I agree that many wonderful things are created in the way you practice guitar with your hand eye coordination, auditory processing, etc... however I find it counterproductive to label ways of creating more or less valuable, they are just different. If I was to program a machine to play the guitar for me it might be different but not inherently better or worse just because you practice every day with your hands and I program a robot to do it. Maybe I have cerebral palsy and I can't play guitar the way you do, does that make my art lesser? It just makes my constraints different and thats at the core of what i'm getting at.