[nicky0]

It would be "its own" in that it's customized for the specific use case.

Your same argument could just as easily be applied to humans. If you write your own code, is it really your own, or is it just based on your own training and other code you've seen?

[teacpde]

I think their point is that there is no new invention here, being able to mimic what a human will do is absolutely impressive, but at the same time it is still mimicking humans. While I just type that out, I do realize my expectations for AI has been constantly lifted by how fast it iterates.

[regularfry]

This isn't mimicking what a human would do, because it is an exceedingly rare human who would write their own renderer for a task needing a CAD file generating. The human who is capable of doing both is rare, let alone the human who can do it in any sort of reasonable time. Saying "but it's in the training data" is a cop-out: it's in Google too, would I do it? No. I would not.

[Aeolos]

It's mimicking humans only in as far as it is still using tools & programming languages developed by humans, for humans.

This is temporary. There is a future where AI builds tools made by AI for AI, evolving at speeds that we may no longer be able to follow.

Even with our current nascent technology, we can already observe this happening. See the recent laments on the AI Bun rewrite that "it's a million lines of code that nobody has ever reviewed." Or Cursor building a new source-control system for LLMs, because git is designed for human collaboration speed, not hundreds of changes per second.

That's just 4 years in. How much of humanity's code will remain hand-written vs LLM-written 2, 5, 10 years from now?

[TeMPOraL]

It's mimicking humans in how humans mimick each other in everything they do.