the whole ai-bro shtick about "ai democritizes art/programming/writing/etc" seemed always so bs to me, but i couldn't put it into words, but i think i now know how.
-
the whole ai-bro shtick about "ai democritizes art/programming/writing/etc" seemed always so bs to me, but i couldn't put it into words, but i think i now know how.
ai didn't democritize any of these things. People did. The internet did. if all these things weren't democritized and freely available on the internet before, there wouldn't have been any training data available in the first place.
the one single amazing thing that today's day and age brought us is, that you can learn anything at any time for free at your own pace.
like, you can just sit down, and learn sketching, drawing, programming, writing, basics in electronics, pcb design, singing, instruments, whatever your heart desires and apply and practice these skills. fuck, most devs on fedi are self taught.
the most human thing there is is learning and creativity. the least human thing there is is trying to automate that away.
(not to mention said tech failing at it miserably)
@lucydev It democratizes it by making it available for the people who can't / don't want to / don't have the time for learning it.
We're already seeing non-programmers successfully create quite substantial coding projects with AI, to an extend which surprises even me, who was a huge proponent for AI in coding from the start.
Same applies to art, there are many people who need or want art (small business owners, hobbyist game creators, wedding organizers, school teachers), but don't have the budget for the real thing.
Of course, many artists and programmers don't want this to happen and try to invent reasons why this is a bad idea, just as phone operators didn't want the phone company to "force" customers to make their own calls, and just as elevator drivers tried to come up with reasons why driverless elevators were unsafe.
-
@lucydev It democratizes it by making it available for the people who can't / don't want to / don't have the time for learning it.
We're already seeing non-programmers successfully create quite substantial coding projects with AI, to an extend which surprises even me, who was a huge proponent for AI in coding from the start.
Same applies to art, there are many people who need or want art (small business owners, hobbyist game creators, wedding organizers, school teachers), but don't have the budget for the real thing.
Of course, many artists and programmers don't want this to happen and try to invent reasons why this is a bad idea, just as phone operators didn't want the phone company to "force" customers to make their own calls, and just as elevator drivers tried to come up with reasons why driverless elevators were unsafe.
@miki without trying to convince you of anything (your stance on ai is yours, i'm not trying to change it), I can assure you that the reasons why many developers see generating production code with AI as a bad idea are not made up.
I am all for exchanging ideas between folks with different opinions, but this had to be said.
-
@miki without trying to convince you of anything (your stance on ai is yours, i'm not trying to change it), I can assure you that the reasons why many developers see generating production code with AI as a bad idea are not made up.
I am all for exchanging ideas between folks with different opinions, but this had to be said.
@lucydev I see putting a prompt into AI and hoping that the generated code is correct as a bad idea, especially in complex apps that have long-term maintainability considerations, or when security / money / lives are at stake.
For throwaway projects (think "secret santa style gift exchange for a local community with a few extra constraints, organized by somebody with 0 CS experience", vibe coding is probably fine.
For professional developers, LLMs can still be pretty useful. Even if you have to review the code manually, push back on stupidity, and give it direction on how to do things, not just what to do (which is honestly what I do for production codebases), it's still a force multiplier.
-
@lucydev I see putting a prompt into AI and hoping that the generated code is correct as a bad idea, especially in complex apps that have long-term maintainability considerations, or when security / money / lives are at stake.
For throwaway projects (think "secret santa style gift exchange for a local community with a few extra constraints, organized by somebody with 0 CS experience", vibe coding is probably fine.
For professional developers, LLMs can still be pretty useful. Even if you have to review the code manually, push back on stupidity, and give it direction on how to do things, not just what to do (which is honestly what I do for production codebases), it's still a force multiplier.
@miki that's a reasonable middle ground we can somewhat agree on.
I haven't seen AI-generated code being the "force multiplier" some folks swear by, especially with newer things like the config changes in pipewire last year, but i guess ymmv
-
@miki that's a reasonable middle ground we can somewhat agree on.
I haven't seen AI-generated code being the "force multiplier" some folks swear by, especially with newer things like the config changes in pipewire last year, but i guess ymmv
@lucydev I think we're painfully re-learning the lessons we learned in programming over the last 70 or so years with AI, just like crypto had to painfully re-learn the lessons that trad fi got to learn in the last five hundred years.
Yes, you can 20x your productivity with AI if you stop worrying at all about architecture and coding practices, just like you can 5x your productivity without AI if you do the same thing. Up to a point. Eventually, tech dept will rear its ugly head, and the initial gains in productivity will be lost due to the bad architectural decisions. Sometimes that
-
@lucydev I think we're painfully re-learning the lessons we learned in programming over the last 70 or so years with AI, just like crypto had to painfully re-learn the lessons that trad fi got to learn in the last five hundred years.
Yes, you can 20x your productivity with AI if you stop worrying at all about architecture and coding practices, just like you can 5x your productivity without AI if you do the same thing. Up to a point. Eventually, tech dept will rear its ugly head, and the initial gains in productivity will be lost due to the bad architectural decisions. Sometimes that
-
the whole ai-bro shtick about "ai democritizes art/programming/writing/etc" seemed always so bs to me, but i couldn't put it into words, but i think i now know how.
ai didn't democritize any of these things. People did. The internet did. if all these things weren't democritized and freely available on the internet before, there wouldn't have been any training data available in the first place.
the one single amazing thing that today's day and age brought us is, that you can learn anything at any time for free at your own pace.
like, you can just sit down, and learn sketching, drawing, programming, writing, basics in electronics, pcb design, singing, instruments, whatever your heart desires and apply and practice these skills. fuck, most devs on fedi are self taught.
the most human thing there is is learning and creativity. the least human thing there is is trying to automate that away.
(not to mention said tech failing at it miserably)
-
the whole ai-bro shtick about "ai democritizes art/programming/writing/etc" seemed always so bs to me, but i couldn't put it into words, but i think i now know how.
ai didn't democritize any of these things. People did. The internet did. if all these things weren't democritized and freely available on the internet before, there wouldn't have been any training data available in the first place.
the one single amazing thing that today's day and age brought us is, that you can learn anything at any time for free at your own pace.
like, you can just sit down, and learn sketching, drawing, programming, writing, basics in electronics, pcb design, singing, instruments, whatever your heart desires and apply and practice these skills. fuck, most devs on fedi are self taught.
the most human thing there is is learning and creativity. the least human thing there is is trying to automate that away.
(not to mention said tech failing at it miserably)
@lucydev also, it's not democratized as long as there's someone who can pull the plug for whoever they don't want to have that tool.
-
@lucydev sometimes that's the right call, particularly when you want to find out what users like and you don't yet know what you're building. It very often isn't.
@miki yeah once you stop caring about wether or not your code runs optimal, or reliable, or does what it's actually supposed to, or can be maintained properly, you can surely be 20x productive, you'll just regret it afterwards at some point (or someone else who has to fix and maintain this mess will)
-
@miki yeah once you stop caring about wether or not your code runs optimal, or reliable, or does what it's actually supposed to, or can be maintained properly, you can surely be 20x productive, you'll just regret it afterwards at some point (or someone else who has to fix and maintain this mess will)
@miki in the short term, it might look like you're right, but in the long term, letting unreliable tech do your job is a bad idea. I'm sure I don't have to give more reasons, right?
-
@miki in the short term, it might look like you're right, but in the long term, letting unreliable tech do your job is a bad idea. I'm sure I don't have to give more reasons, right?
@lucydev Humans are fundamentally unreliable tech. Unreliable in different ways, but still unreliable.
-
@lucydev Humans are fundamentally unreliable tech. Unreliable in different ways, but still unreliable.
@miki professional software engineers are usually more reliable than LLMs...
-
@miki and the most important destinction, which i honestly didn't think I had to make, is: humans aren't tech
-
@miki and the most important destinction, which i honestly didn't think I had to make, is: humans aren't tech
@lucydev@wetdry.world @miki@dragonscave.space To push further, we're doing all of this _for_ humans, people aren't resources to exploit -
@lucydev It democratizes it by making it available for the people who can't / don't want to / don't have the time for learning it.
We're already seeing non-programmers successfully create quite substantial coding projects with AI, to an extend which surprises even me, who was a huge proponent for AI in coding from the start.
Same applies to art, there are many people who need or want art (small business owners, hobbyist game creators, wedding organizers, school teachers), but don't have the budget for the real thing.
Of course, many artists and programmers don't want this to happen and try to invent reasons why this is a bad idea, just as phone operators didn't want the phone company to "force" customers to make their own calls, and just as elevator drivers tried to come up with reasons why driverless elevators were unsafe.
@miki @lucydev It doesn't democratize shit unless it's locally ran models.
If you rely on your programming or "art" on big tech company to do it for you, then it's the opposite.
Big tech wants people to think that AI is democratizing, because it gives the more control. That's why it's free and unprofitable as hell, because it can get people hooked on it, until they have to pay for it (and once you pay for it, I can't see how it's more democratizing than paying an actual artist or developer). Additional bonus in investors being happy because lots of users. -
the whole ai-bro shtick about "ai democritizes art/programming/writing/etc" seemed always so bs to me, but i couldn't put it into words, but i think i now know how.
ai didn't democritize any of these things. People did. The internet did. if all these things weren't democritized and freely available on the internet before, there wouldn't have been any training data available in the first place.
the one single amazing thing that today's day and age brought us is, that you can learn anything at any time for free at your own pace.
like, you can just sit down, and learn sketching, drawing, programming, writing, basics in electronics, pcb design, singing, instruments, whatever your heart desires and apply and practice these skills. fuck, most devs on fedi are self taught.
the most human thing there is is learning and creativity. the least human thing there is is trying to automate that away.
(not to mention said tech failing at it miserably)
-
@lucydev It democratizes it by making it available for the people who can't / don't want to / don't have the time for learning it.
We're already seeing non-programmers successfully create quite substantial coding projects with AI, to an extend which surprises even me, who was a huge proponent for AI in coding from the start.
Same applies to art, there are many people who need or want art (small business owners, hobbyist game creators, wedding organizers, school teachers), but don't have the budget for the real thing.
Of course, many artists and programmers don't want this to happen and try to invent reasons why this is a bad idea, just as phone operators didn't want the phone company to "force" customers to make their own calls, and just as elevator drivers tried to come up with reasons why driverless elevators were unsafe.
It democratizes it by making it available for the people who can't / don't want to / don't have the time for learning it.
No, I'm sorry, but it doesn't.
What it "democratises" is being an art director who commissions a machine to generate things derived from the (uncredited, un-compensated) work of others (whose lack of consent was gleefully violated).
Gutenberg democratised learning, with his movable-type press.
Encylopaedias took that a step further, and Wikipedia amped it up again.
Blogs and Youtube democratised the sharing of knowledge and skills.
All these things have enabled people to learn how to do a thing.But if you typed in a description and got a picture in return, you did not create that picture. You commissioned it.
-
@lucydev Saying AI democratises art, writing or programming is like saying that a chef democratises cooking, or a maid democratises house cleaning.
-
It democratizes it by making it available for the people who can't / don't want to / don't have the time for learning it.
No, I'm sorry, but it doesn't.
What it "democratises" is being an art director who commissions a machine to generate things derived from the (uncredited, un-compensated) work of others (whose lack of consent was gleefully violated).
Gutenberg democratised learning, with his movable-type press.
Encylopaedias took that a step further, and Wikipedia amped it up again.
Blogs and Youtube democratised the sharing of knowledge and skills.
All these things have enabled people to learn how to do a thing.But if you typed in a description and got a picture in return, you did not create that picture. You commissioned it.
@KatS @lucydev It democratizes in the public transit way (by making transport available to non-drivers), not in the car way (by making it easy).
And btw: all art is uncredited and a lot of it is unconsensual. Outside of academia, it's extremely rare to credit every single influence that an artist used, down to Da Vinci or the Gregorian chants, as long as snippets significant snippets aren't extracted directly from that work, something that AI only does when prompted.
