[adamredwoods]

>> The computers will come for all of our jobs eventually, but those of us who refuse or decline to embrace the most powerful creative tools we’ve ever been given will be the first to fall.

It's being mandated by almost all companies. We're forced to use it, whether it produces good results or not. I can change a one-line code faster than Claude Code can, as long as I understand the code. Someday, I'll lose understanding of the code, because I didn't write it. What am I embracing?

[mikkupikku]

Times change, you have to learn new tools or get left behind. Nobody is asking if you like it, even expecting your personal preferences to matter and be taken seriously is a serious example of privilege.

I'm serious. Your boss comes to you and tells you to use AI, how is that any different from the foreman of an experienced carpentry / framing crew coming up to his old pros and handing them a pneumatic nail gun, and telling them to put down the hammers? You think they didn't complain, these men who pride themselves in being able to drive a nail with fewer swings than others? These men who are super fast and experienced with hammers and took pride in that, even enjoyed their work, do you think they were happy when their boss, some unskilled management bitch, showed that he could drive nails faster than they could just by pulling a trigger? They hated it! And it didn't matter, they had to adapt. Why should programmers be more privileged?

Your boss tells you to use AI because he gave it a task that took you a day to complete and the AI did it in five minutes. Your boss doesn't care about your skill with an obsolete craft, or the art or aesthetic qualities of coding by hand, or even the supposed quality benefits of doing it by hand. None of that matters when the new tool can demonstrably work faster. Your boss sees it himself, then sees you complaining, and he then sees you as an old veteran complaining about the new way of things. Complain all you want, you either learn to keep up or you'll get left behind.

[xigoi]

> None of that matters when the new tool can demonstrably work faster.

Speed is only a good thing if you’re heading in the correct direction.

[photios]

> Someday, I'll lose understanding of the code, because I didn't write it.

I've been wading through vast corporate codebases I never wrote and yet had to understand for the past 20 years. This isn't any different, and AI tools help with that understanding. A lot!

The tools and techniques are out there.

[theonething]

> I'll lose understanding of the code, because I didn't write it.

What about code that other (human) engineers write? Do you not understand that code too because you didn't write it?

[galaxyLogic]

Intersting observation. There is a difference however. Pre-AI each human programmer understood the code they wrote, in general. So there were many humans who understood some part of the code. Poast-AI there will be no humans who understand any code, presumably. Sure we will understand its syntax, but the overall architecture of applications may be so complicated that no human can understand it, in practice.

[martin-t]

Have you read Coding machines[0]?

BTW, that guy received an Oscar for coding. Oh, far far have we fallen since those days and how far we have yet to go...

[0]: https://www.teamten.com/lawrence/writings/coding-machines/

[martin-t]

You're not embracing it, you're forced to accept it because the nature of employer-employee relationships has a fundamental power differential which makes it exploitative.

You helped build the company, you should own a proportional part of it.

The issue with the current system is that only the people who provide money, not the people who provide work, get to own the result. Work (and natural resources) is where value comes from. Their money came from work as well but not only their work, they were in a position of power which allowed them to get a larger cut than deserved. Ownership should, by law, be distributed according to the amount and skill level of work.

Then people wouldn't worry about losing their jobs to automation - because they'd keep receiving dividends from the value of their previous work.

If their previous work allowed the company to buy a robot to replace them, great, they now get the revenue from the robot's work while being free to pursue other things in their now free time.

If their previous work allowed an LLM to be trained or rented to replace them, great, they get get the revenue from the LLM's work...

[mikkupikku]

Crapitalism didn't let up for the benifit of the old veteran framers who didn't want to use nailguns, why should it let up for the benifit of old veteran programmers who don't want to use LLMs? We aren't special. Expecting a shakeup of society's whole economic system just to preserve your preference for old tools is totally out to lunch.

[martin-t]

Because a shakeup only happens when enough people get fucked sufficiently.

I think you underestimate how actual AI would change the economy. All white collar jobs gone, not just programmers - customer support, accountants, managers, therapists, teachers, lawyers, engineers, researchers, designers, HR, marketing. All gone. Everything you can do from home - gone. IF your job doesn't involve physical interaction with the world - gone. And even if it does, it's cheaper to strap a camera to someone's forehead and let actual AI tell him what to do.

These people will still need to eat and they are highly competent so they'll try to get into careers which require manual skill, driving the value of those down as well. And that's even before robotics get sufficiently advanced to stop replacing those. Everyone will get fucked except those who own the AI companies.

And that's how you get a revolution.

[demorro]

Used to be people sold capitalism as something that gave freedom to individuals. Now it's just the thing that forces us to to act against what we believe is best for ourselves and society at large. Anyone who expresses distaste for that is of course, out to lunch.

[mikkupikku]

I'm not selling capitalism. I'm telling you that society is indifferent to your desire to program in the old ways, we're not going to start a worker's revolution for the sake of programmers who don't like coding agents. You can either adapt, or get left behind.

[martin-t]

> adapt, or get left behind.

See my comment above - you still see AI as a tool because you're only considering what I call "AI" instead of aAI (actual AI).

Imagine Stephen Hawking level genius at every area of expertise, able to think faster than any human and cheaper than minimum wage but unable to interact with the physical world.

That's not a tool you adapt to use, that's a tool the owners of your company replace everyone with, except ironically those roughly minimum wage manual workers.

[auggierose]

What about the people who didn't work for the one company that became the only company?

You still don't make sense, mate.

Yes, a better system would be great. Half-baked ideas only stand in its way.

[martin-t]

Since in my system, you cannot buy ownership of a corporate person (just like you cannot buy a natural person, for good reasons), that severely limits how such a situation could arise in the first place.

You still get paid a salary, you can still save up or invest it, it's just that money only buys you ownership according to how much work (times * skill) you put in to make that money.

Any system based on market competition in which your scenario realistically happens was probably so degenerate it would end up being replaced (whether democratically or by force). My system, AFAICT, is strictly (in the mathematical sense) better than the current implementation of capitalism, it just has extra precautions against buying power. What it boils down to is you want a perfect system while I am proposing a system that's better than the current state and you reject it based on not being perfect.

BTW a part of your comment is a condescending personal attack which doesn't add to the discussion and is against the guidelines.

[uduni]

It's a skill set just like coding. You can embrace an elevated workflow where you can forget about the specific syntax and focus on the architecture and integration. It takes time to intuit what exactly the models are bad at, so you can forsee hallucinations and prevent them from happening in the first place. Yes you can write 1 line faster than Claude, but what about 10 lines? 100? 1000?

[mikkupikku]

> Yes you can write 1 line faster than Claude, but what about 10 lines? 100? 1000?

Bingo. One quick edit when you already know what needs to be done is trivial, that means nothing. What happens when you have to write a new feature and it will take hundreds of lines of code? Unless you're an elder god of programming, the LLM will lap you easily.

[phatskat]

> that means nothing

We currently have a tracking code that is deprecated, and stopping it from going out is a one line removal in a switch statement. I have a ticket for it, it’s 1 point, easy.

I’d wager a guess that if I told an LLM “we don’t want the ‘worker-item-click-apply’ event to fire”, I’m going to get a mix of code edits, maybe a new module, and probably a filter at the API call level, because it’s going to be too clever.

> What happens when you have to write a new feature and it will take hundreds of lines of code? Unless you're an elder god of programming, the LLM will lap you easily.

Then I’m going to write hundreds of lines, I’m going to write tests, I’m going to painstakingly compare my work to Figma, and I’m going to do it a lot slower than an LLM. I’m also going to understand the code, inside and out, and when our new engineer hops in to help add a feature or fix a bug, I’ll know where to send them, I’ll be able to explain the code to them, and we will both grow a better understanding of our codebase.

Could an LLM do that, or help? Sure, and I know that it will take a lot of effort and refinement that is just going to be churn.

[xigoi]

A good programmer can write in 100 lines what Claude will write in 1000, so this is not a fair comparison. Less is more.