[yoz-y]

Hopefully this does not devolve into ‘nuh-uh’-‘it is too’ but I disagree.

Even putting aside the AI engineering part where you use a model as a brick in your program.

Classic programming is based on assumption that there is a formal strict input language. When programming I think in that language, I hold the data structures and connections in my head. When debugging I have intuition on what is going on because I know how the code works.

When working on somebody else’s code base I bisect, I try to find the abstractions.

When coding with AI this does not happen. I can check the code it outputs but the speed and quantity does not permit the same level of understanding unless I eschew all benefits of using AI.

When coding with AI I think about the context, the spec, the general shape of the code. When the code doesn’t build or crashes the first reflex is not to look at the code. It’s prompting AI to figure it out.

[phpnode]

This is the same argument that people used to have against compilers

[yoz-y]

It is not. One version of a compiler on one platform transforms a specific input into an exact and predictable artefact.

A compiler will tell you what is wrong. On top of that the intent is 100% preserved even when it is wrong.

An LLM will transform an arbitrarily vague input into an output. Adding more specification may or may not change the output.

There is a fundamental difference between asking for “make me a server in go that answers with the current time on port 80” and actually writing out the code where you _have to_ make all decisions such as “wait in what format” beforehand. (And using the defaults is also making a decision - because there are defaults)

Compilers have undefined behaviour. UB exists in well defined places.

Even a 100% perfect LLM that never makes mistakes has, by definition, UB everywhere when spec lacks.

[phpnode]

Right, they allow for the idea of gradual specification - you can write in broad strokes where you don't care about the details, and in fine detail when you do. Whether the LLM followed the spec or not is mostly down to having the right tooling.

[archagon]

Compilers are an abstraction. AI coding is not an abstraction by any reasonable definition.

[phpnode]

You're only thinking that because we're mostly still at the imperative, REPL stage.

We're telling them what to do in a loop. Instead we should be declaring what we want to be true.

[arretevad]

You’re describing a hypothetical that doesn’t exist. Even if we assume it will exist someday we can’t reasonably compare it to what exists today.

[phpnode]

It exists today, please message me if you’d like to try it

[xphos]

The value is in the imperative, the computer does what you tell it do, The control is very powerful and is arguably a major reason computer technology is as power and popular as it is today. Bits don't generally speaking argue with you the same way analog programming if by electronics or mechanical means did before the transistor.

You can certainly write in imperative or functional but you are still telling the computer what you want. LLM use impercise language can generate loose binding the actual reality people one. They have there use cases too but they have a radically different locus of control. Compilers don't ask you to give up percision either they will do what you tell them to do. AI can do whatever it thinks is the most likely next token which is foundationally different from what we do when we engage in programming or writing in general