[SAI_Peregrinus]

Creativity is fun. AIs automate that away. I want an AI that can do my laundry, fold it, and put it away. I don't need an AI to write code for me. I don't mind AI code review, it sometimes has a valid suggestion, and it's easy enough to ignore most of the rest of the time.

[collingreen]

I was thinking this again just yesterday. Do my laundry correctly and get it put away. Organized my storage. Clean the bathroom. Do the dishes. Catalog my pantry, give me recipes, and keep it correctly stocked. Maybe I'm just a simple creature but like, these are the obvious problems in my life I'll pay to have go away so why are we taking away the fun stuff instead?

[ghiculescu]

You can already pay to have all those issues go away.

[Brian_K_White]

No you can't. You can only pay to transfer them to someone else on top of their own.

It's fundamentally different from how a machine or some code makes a task actually go away or at least become smaller.

[pliny]

There are already cheap, domestic robots for cleaning dishes, cleaning the floor, cleaning clothes, making coffee, heating and cooling food, turning screws, drilling holes and so on. All those robots represent a greater than 90 percent (and sometimes a greater than 99 percent) savings in time relative to doing the same tasks manually. You still have to move the objects they operate on around within your house but that's mostly the only part of the task you have to do.

[Der_Einzige]

As someone who played the roomba game quite a bit - you transfer the problem of vacuuming to the problem of very frequent robot cleaning. I've saved more time switching to a high powered central vac than I ever did with constantly cleaning the robot because I had the audacity to own a fluffy dog.

Also people claiming cleaning isn't "creative" or "fun". Steam has a whole genre of games simulating cleaning stuff because the act of cleaning is extremely fun and creative to a lot of people: https://store.steampowered.com/app/246900/Viscera_Cleanup_De... being a great example

Actually I do NOT want my robot to do my laundry for me! And because I'm garbage at painting and comparatively better at laundry, I DO want it to paint for me.

[account42]

> Also people claiming cleaning isn't "creative" or "fun". Steam has a whole genre of games simulating cleaning stuff because the act of cleaning is extremely fun and creative to a lot of people: https://store.steampowered.com/app/246900/Viscera_Cleanup_De... being a great example

Someone making a game about an activity doesn't mean that the activity is fun or desirable in real life at all.

I mean yes there are people that find comfort in cleaning but they are not the target audience of cleaning simulators at all.

[dzhiurgis]

$500 robots (ie Mova) are very impressive nowadays. You can even integrate plumbing into them so you really not doing much.

Washer dryer combos are good too. Folding laundry is biggest pain of my life so far. Also unloading dishwasher, but fix is easy here - get double one.

[sanex]

I think the 10 percent is more work than you give it credit for.

[Thorrez]

Unfortunately many things aren't dishwasher safe, some things don't fit in the dishwasher, and often certain types of food are not properly washed off in the dishwasher.

[marcosdumay]

> All those robots represent a greater than 90 percent savings in time relative to doing the same tasks manually.

Lol, nope.

Dishwashers solve at best some 50% of the hassle that are the easy to wash table dishes, while being completely unable to clean oven ones. Floor cleaners solve a 5 minutes task in a couple-of-days-long house upkeep. Coffee makers... don't really automate anything, why did you list them here? And there's no automation available for heating and cooling food. And the part about drilling and turning screws also isn't automation at all.

The only thing on your list that is close to solved is clothes cleaning. And there's the entire ironing thing that is incredibly resistant to solving. But yeah, that puts it way beyond 90% solved.

[diggan]

> Creativity is fun. AIs automate that away.

I've been developing with LLMs on my side for months/about a year now, and feels like it's allowing me to be more creative, not less. But I'm not doing any "vibe-coding", maybe that's why?

The creative parts (for me) is coming up with the actual design of the software, and how it all fits together, what it should do and how, and I get to do that more than ever now.

[dingnuts]

I'm still faster than the cheap bots.

The creative part for me includes both the implementation and the design, because the implementation also matters. The bots get in the way.

Maybe I would be faster if I paid for Claude Code. It's too expensive to evaluate.

If you like your expensive AI autocomplete, fine. But I have not seen any demonstrable and maintainable productivity gains from it, and I find understanding my whole implementation faster, more fun, and that it produces better software.

Maybe that will change, but people told me three years ago that we would be at the point today where I could not outdo the bot;

with all due respect, I am John Henry and I am still swinging my hammer. The steam pile driving machine is still too unpredictable!

[diggan]

> The creative part for me includes both the implementation and the design

The implementations LLMs end up writing are predicable, because my design locks down what it needs to do. I basically know exactly what they'll end up doing, and how, but it types faster than I do, that's why I hand it off while I go on to think about the next design iteration.

I currently send every single prompt to Claude, Codex, Qwen and Gemini (looks something like this: https://i.imgur.com/YewIjGu.png), and while the all most of the time succeed, doing it like this makes it clear that they're following what I imagined they'd do during the design phase, as they all end up with more or less the same solutions.

> If you like your expensive AI autocomplete

I don't know if you mean that in jest, but what I'm doing isn't "expensive AI autocomplete". I come up with what has to be done, the design for achieving so, then hand off the work. I don't actually write much code at all, just small adjustments when needed.

> and I find understanding my whole implementation faster

Yeah, I guess that's the difference between "vibe-coding" and what I (and others) are doing, as we're not giving up any understanding or control of the architecture and design, but instead focus mostly on those two things while handing off other work.

[alickz]

I agree, and my flow is similar

I've made great use of AI by keeping my boundaries clear and my requirements tight, and by rigorously ensuring I understand _every_ line of code I commit

I believe software development will transition to a role closer to director/reviewer/editor, where knowledge of programming paradigms are just as important as now, but also where _communication_ skills separate the good devs from the _great_ devs

The difference between a 1x dev and a 10x dev in future will be the latter knows how to clearly and concisely describe a problem or a requirement to laymen, peers, and LLMs alike. Something I've seen many devs struggle with today (myself included)

[skydhash]

> but also where _communication_ skills separate the good devs from the _great_ devs

I think it has been that way since forever. If you look at all the great projects, it’s rare for the guy at the helm to not be a good communicator. And at corporate job, you soend a good chunk of the year writing stuff to people. Even the code you’re writing, you think abou the next person who’s going to read it.

[CSSer]

I think that has always been the difference. First principles.

[r_lee]

Claude code is too expensive to evaluate?

It's 20 bucks a month

[victorbjorklund]

Same. I think there are two types of devs. Those that love designing the individual building blocks and those that wanna stack the blocks together to make something new.

At this point AI is best at the first thing and less good at the second. I like stacking blocks together. If I build a beautiful UI I don't enjoy writing the individual css code for every button but rather composing the big picture.

Not saying either is better or worse. But I can imagine that the people that loves to build the individual blocks like AI less because it takes away something they enjoy. For me it just takes away a step I had to do to get to the composing of the big picture.

[skydhash]

The thing is, i love doing both. But there’s an actual rush of enjoyment when I finally figure one of the tenets of a system. It’s like solving a puzzle for me.

After that, it’s all became routine work as easy as drinking water. You explain the problem and I can quicly find the solution. Using AI at this point would be like herding cats. I already know what code to write, having a handful being suggested is distracting. Like feeling a a tune, and someone playing another melody other than the one you know.

[victorbjorklund]

Yea, I guess some people enjoy both.

[bluefirebrand]

> For me it just takes away a step I had to do to get to the composing of the big picture.

You can't successfully build the big picture on the sort of rotten foundation that AI produces though

I don't care how much you enjoy assembling building blocks over building the low level stuff, if you offload part of the building onto AI you're building garbage

[chrischen]

Exactly. I loved doing novel implementations or abstractions… and the AI excels at the part where it modifies it slightly for different contexts… aka the boring stuff.

[codr7]

But this is how you learn, how you find better ways, by grinding.

Getting wild ideas badly implemented on a silver plate is a slot machine, it leads nowhere but in circles.

[chrischen]

When I say ideas i'm talking in the context of programming... I'm not talking about "I got a great idea for a new social network" and the AI just wrote some spaghetti code for it. When I have the AI write low level code it's stuff like filling out a function implementation of which I already defined high level type classes for... I can focus on high level abstractions, whereas the AI can iterate in the most statistically sensible way to fill in the easy blanks.

[diggan]

By grinding what though? I don't wanna grind "Entering characters with my fingers", I wanna grind "Does this design work for getting X to work as I want", which is exactly the sort of things LLMs help me move faster on.

And yes, if you're just using it as a slot machine, I understand it doesn't feel useful. But I don't think that's how most people use it, at least that's not how I use it.

[chrischen]

To be fair, I think a lot of people are in fact using it like a slot machine, which is where a lot of the "AI doesn't help me code" perspectives are coming from.

[fourseventy]

i've done 20 years of grinding thanks. im happy to work at a higher level of abstraction now.

[JeremyHerrman]

depends on what abstraction level you enjoy being creative at.

Some people like creative coding, others like being creative with apps and features without much care to how it's implemented under the hood.

I like both, but IMO there is a much larger crowd for higher level creativity, and in those cases AIs don't automate the creativity away, they enable it!

[nl]

> Creativity is fun. AIs automate that away.

This is the complete opposite of my experiences with using AI Coding tools heavily

[CuriouslyC]

Is AI automating creativity away if you come up with an idea and have it actually implement it?

[Sharlin]

Yes, because ideas are not worth much if anything. If you have an idea of a book, or a painting, and have someone else implement it, you have not done creative work. Literally, you have not created the work, brought it to existence. The creator has done the creativity.

[CuriouslyC]

I guess that depends on how much oversight you engage in. A lot of famous masters would oversee apprentices and step in for difficult tasks and to finish the work, yet we still attribute the work to those masters. Most of the work in science is done by graduate students, but we still attribute the lion's share of the credit to PIs.

[alickz]

If you write a screenplay (the idea), and direct actors to act it out according to your vision (the implementation), did you _create_ the film?

I think my answer would be "Does it matter?"

If it brings joy to you or others, who cares about the semantics of creation

[Planktonne]

A screenplay isn't just an idea; it's an implementation of an idea.

[shakna]

Nope. Films acknowledge a difference between the writers, the book that inspired it, and the director.

[zeroimpl]

You kind of missed the “and direct actors to play it out” part. If you did all of that, that’s essentially the creator.

[shakna]

... What was the last word in my comment?

[grantWilliams]

Most software is developer tools and frameworks to manage electrical state in machines.

Such state management messes use up a lot of resources to copy around.

As an EE working in QA future chips with a goal of compressing away developer syntax art to preserve the least amount of state management possible to achieve maximum utility; sorry self selecting biology of SWEs, but also not sorry.

Above all this is capitalism not honorific obligationism. If hardware engineers can claim more of the tech economy for our shareholders, we must.

There are plenty of other creative outlets that are much less resource intensive. Rich first world programmers are a small subset of the population and can branch out then and explore life rather than believe everyone else has an obligation to conserve the personal story of a generation of future dead.