[lll-o-lll]

This article triggers all my “written by an LLM” spidey senses.

Which is ironic considering the subject matter. “Perfect”, but artificially constructed. “Just for me”, but algorithmic slop.

I agree that you can do so much more custom tailoring of bespoke software with the speed an LLM brings. But something inside of me still revolts at calling this anything other than “convenient”.

“Perfect” I will reserve for things I’ve made myself. However “imperfect” they may really be.

[golemotron]

Look at it this way. The carver doesn't have to grow the tree. Using an LLM for coding is a lot like being a carver. You can take broad or small strokes and discard what you don't like.

[lll-o-lll]

> Using an LLM for coding is a lot like being a carver.

It’s nothing like being a carver. It’s like being a director; “Once more! With feeling!”. “Perfect, brilliant, just one more take, and I want you to consider…”

A sculptor shapes with their hands, and there is pleasure in that. A director shapes with someone else’s hands.

[ares623]

It's like being a master, really. You're getting output from something that can't say no and that was built from the works of millions of unknowing and unconsenting contributors.

[golemotron]

Yet we see directors as artists. Kubrick, Coppola (both of them), Hitchcock, etc.

[bitwize]

We also see actors as artists, and pay them gorillions of dollars. AI is about using distilled human knowledge, while cutting the human out of the loop (and out of the payroll).