"Art is in the eye of the beholder" - it is me, who enjoys art and how it affects me and works with my emotions that is affected by it. Who or what the artist is, should be irrelevant, unless the artist imposes some monetary value I want to profit from at some point.
I don’t think the artist should be irrelevant - the art is the expression of the artist’s emotions. Knowing about the artist unlocks a lot of depth in the art, it’s an attempt to share and express their perspective through creative means.
Not to say how you decide to consume art isn’t valid (there is no proper definition after all). However, you’re doing a disservice to a lot of artists by dismissing their role in it all.
> However, you’re doing a disservice to a lot of artists by dismissing their role in it all.
That is a false assumption. I do not dismiss the artist role, but I also would not be interested in the artist if their art does not move me. People generally do not know who Banksy is, but he is being defined by his art, not by his persona. That may very well happen for an AI agent sometime in the future.
Just to add that nowadays once can use HCL Verse for web- or mobile app-based email access to their Lotus Notes email database. It's quite sleek and it works.
> that you could click through the interface and find a lot of capabilities that were vestigial
Lotus Notes allows you to right-click on a "document" and see absolutely all data attached to it, directly in the UI, including access permissions. This can be immensely useful, because not all data could be part of its UI representation.
The closest to this today would be inspecting the JSON data on your browser networking tab to view what your app exchanges with the server, but its much more clunky.
I don't buy the AI argument. I'd bet on Linux replacing Windows for a good chunk of desktop users. For example, I installed LibreOffice on my parents' PC last month, because I replaced their Windows with Linux Mint.
Man, I would straight up tell them I will use AI to review that crap and so be it. In fact this is what I tell to colleagues if they send my non-tested vibe-coded stuff or vibe-generated documentation. Everyone can generate shit today, but I believe testing, reviewing, writing docs, etc. must still go through humans.
I think the argument is quite valid. OP writes "business partner". It begs the question - would their business partner get on board if they didn't have a AI subscription by their side? How about instead of 5K PR, OP got the same half-baked buggy crap or absolutely nothing instead? We don't know the business partner, but we are ready to throw the problem at AI agents right away. Well, I find this not particularly productive.
> but we are ready to throw the problem at AI agents right away
I'm not sure I understand this correctly, but I assume it means blaming the agents? If so, that's not my point - I'm describing how many people are using them to be lazy, which shouldn't be particularly controversial.
To your other question: if OP had gotten half the size PR to go through, that sounds more manageable to me? If they had gotten nothing, that could be a useful signal about the capability of their business partner, worth knowing now rather than later. Could one imagine a situation where AI enables a thoughtful business partner to provide more value? Absolutely. Should this be the default assumption? I'd argue that it absolutely shouldn't.
we started this project before was mainstream (we got sidetracked by other work) and him having less experience but being a very good programmer (I went with him to college and worked together for years), he would listen to my input, fix, and adjust. I have decades of experience.
Really sorry to hear so. Your story reinforces a fear I have that humanity is being squeezed out of all manner of things (pre AI too, but even more so since).
> Well, as much as people lose all their muscle by been bed-ridden, he's lost all his brain by being AI Assisted™.
> THIS is what I am so against when people use AI for everything.
This sounds horrendous but can we please stop equating vibe-coding to AI-assisted coding? They are not the same thing. It's one thing to submit 5K vibe-coded untested PR and another thing to use AI to add functionality in a granular way that you can review, or generate boilerplate, or test your ideas and scrap them if they suck and so on.
Thanks for expanding on this! I appreciate it and my sympathy to you.
I do have a similar case at work, but it's my superior in that case - shipping large volumes of code with Claude, 100% vibed. It's slightly different in the sense of him having almost no clue about programming but having very well self-organization and discipline. Rigorously documents his work (with Claude of course) and commits his Claude sessions in the repo. Funny enough we got 2 paying customers for one the projects he vibed. It blew my mind. I don't know how this will play out, but it's been a bit scary and pushed a lot of us to do more with AI rather than manual coding. I still can't get myself to commit to 100% vibe-coded stuff though.
no worries, a lot of these assumptions exist mostly in my head as a frustrated dev.
and yeah luckily I ended up quitting just right when coding was getting easy with LLMs and even back then (3 years ago) I remember our PMs and bosses saying "look why does it take you a week? I did in in two hours!"
Got riddance to get out of those jobs, BUT I do agree that paying customers != shipping software. Getting paid customers is a great skill and it's the skill my friend has (he's an A class marketer, and not in a fishy or scammy way). The guy just understands marketting. That's why I'm working with him.
Should we replace "programming" and "programmers" with "weaving" and "weavers" in this write-up and refer to history and how it worked out for weavers during the industrial revolution, I think it is clear where all this is going.
I know some people are mad about this and I am as well. However, as someone that is 20+ years in the field, I feel I've seen enough to say things are fundamentally and irreversibly changing.
I’ve thought of this and even societally outcomes seem pretty bad.
> Replace detailed unique clothes with cookie cutter bland clothes
> Replace a job with craftsmanship and skill to a mind numbing boring job that possesses very little skill
> The machines still do a much worse job than a good tailor, but most of the public don’t care and can’t even judge good quality vs bad.
> We got a lot more clothes and freed a certain class of people to go work on other stuff (this second point is a bit doubtful as in the immediate future they just worked in sweatshops but eventually maybe? )
So yeah kind of a stupid trade in retrospect, I suspect programming will go the same way. We’ll drown in mountains of functional slop, all apps currently will be made by agents. Public will have more software / don’t care and a good human programmer will still clock agents in code quality, which is a subjective aesthetic metric.
> I review the code myself, the old school way, before it reaches production. Pagecord has a comprehensive test suite that runs before code is shipped.
That's nice. I do pretty much the same for our product. I know many that do the same across different companies.
To your question, the [1. Writing code] part - I think is a waste of time though, because at this point anti-AI has turned into ideological/SJW thing that is beyond reason. The rest looks fine to me.
Yes, LLM code gen and human review seems to be the universal standard... today! that may well change soon though as trust in the agents increases and they get better. Fable, for instance, is so good for what I do (Rails) that I pretty much trust it implicitly. I still like to check though :)
reply