The way I look at those things is that it’s a sign of the times. Technology is iterative - programming used to be done with 1’s and 0’s on punch cards, so we created low-level programming languages like Assembly to input information in a more readily understandable way. Those languages still required intimate knowledge of the hardware, so we created high-level languages like C to make the code more platform-independent, further abstracting from the bare metal. We still had to compile for specific machines though, so we abstracted yet another level away by creating languages that utilise VM’s or are interpreted to make code completely independent of the machine it’s running on. We’re getting to a stage where we’re abstracting away from the code itself and just “telling the computer to do things” in our native tongues, letting the computer figure out what we meant, something that in the past we could only imagine in fiction like Star Trek. That’s huge, and it is good, but it comes with its own caveats.
What’s important here is that the “vibe coder” is relying on the machine to correctly interpret their instructions and generate code that does what they need it to do, and they need to verify that. In all of those previous stages of development the onus was on the coder to proofread and test the result to make sure it does not feature bugs that cause undesirable behaviour on the user’s machine. This is still the case and necessitates the required level of knowledge from the coder. There is nothing wrong with using AI as your little helper when coding to offload menial tasks so long as you know what the resulting program does and why.
Story time. I came to this exact conclusion when I read a story about Linus Torvalds using AI to fix bugs in an Intel driver, and arguing with said AI regarding the potential fixes. In that instance the AI was repeatedly wrong and needed to be steered in the right direction with conviction and persistence - it’s just a program, it doesn’t actually “think”. That being said, it was invaluable in this task per Linus’ own admission as it allowed him to brainstorm the problem, look at it from multiple angles he might have not considered and, ultimately, create a working patch.
https://www.xda-developers.com/linu...the-strengths-and-weaknesses-of-the-new-tech/
So, what did we learn? There was a bug in the Intel Xe driver and a patch was created with the help of AI, by one of the most foremost and formidable programmers in the world. Was it frustrating? Yes, because the model is trained a certain way and it will fall back on that training because it doesn’t actually “think”, it can be wrong and it needs to be shown another way sometimes. To get to that stage, you need to know what you’re doing. Combine AI and know-how together and you have an improved workflow that creates working solutions to problems that could take a long time to troubleshoot otherwise, or even to discover in the first place. It’s a fantastic tool that can, in Linus’ own words, do a lot of the grunt work, and that’s great.
Anyone who finds value in manually doing menial tasks does not value their time and does a disservice to their skill. Even if you’re a *great* programmer and you *can* complete a task without any assistance, your time is *better spent* tackling the big issues as opposed to wasted on peripheral nonsense that can be effectively copy-pasted, for the same reason why you’d use a library instead of writing everything from scratch - you don’t do that unless you have to. However, AI is *not* a replacement for knowledge and it does not absolve one of responsibility for what their code does because it would be negligent - the computer isn’t responsible for what you distribute, you are. You should inspect the result, understand it to the best of your ability, make relevant changes and, in the process of doing so, “own it”. AI is a tool, it provides assistance, and that’s how it should be used.
Agreed on oh so many fronts with what you are saying.
Seeing greats like Torvald use AI speaks volumes. If we all treated what an AI/LLM spits out in a similar fashion that would be a win for human evolution. With that I would be happy. But we all know and i'm not even trying to exaggerate here 95% of the use is not directed in such a way.
I have seen people ask AI for the most mundane things imaginable ... stuff anyone should be able to do from their head ... since they where 6.
Maybe it is because I come from different times (40 year old, IT scholar working in marketing for reference) and a different upbringing. But I was a student of learning to do things, having to know things in a time when there wasn't AI, when there wasn't the internet (well at least till this extent). When YOU had to do the work.
Back then (geez that makes me sound like a fossil), skill actually mattered.
Now skill is becoming less and less. We can debate talking to AI and getting the result from it is skill sure....
But we are talking apples and oranges at that point.
And that's what still scares me till this day regarding AI.
People are using AI
- as their source of truth/fact,
- as their source of gathering and providing knowledge,
- (in some cases) as their rubber duck,
- (in some cases) as their skill replacement,
- (in some cases) as their way of income,
etc.
All of that is fine... but for the love of anything, don't take what comes from it as good without vetting it against anything or anyone, plus understanding what it gave back to a degree that you can soundly stand by it.
And I truly get the time comparison. It's the one equity we always end up losing from.
Whether it be in life, whether if it's for deadlines etc.
Spending less time on something is great. But at what cost?
It used to be that; Invest your time and perseverance = skill improving = cracking an issue/developing something etc. = done.
Now it's becoming more and more of; Invest as less time as possible = cracking an issue/developing something by force (AI) = done.
The beauty of skill is; When skill becomes automatic, it transitions from a conscious mental effort into an unconscious, flowing habit. You then, for the games in us all, GIT GUD at that what you are doing.
When skill becomes obsolete due to whatever reason; Do (eventually) we as people become obsolete? In gaming essence, so you want an auto play game (let's put Wolverine here as it's relevant) to do it for you and say you did it?
Sorry I can really rant about this myself.
My biggest peeve must be that I just can't stand people praising themselves on what they can do but once they are put in situation where for whatever reason their tools are not their, they can barely formulate a sentence regarding what they can do. And yeah I know it all has to do with the half-life of technical skill but man I loved the times more when skill truly mattered.
Also and this will be my last note about it; Im already seeing a lot of people get tired out over all the AI this AI that AI meh AI slop. A turning point, probably not, but eventually I can see people wanting more and more humanmade™.
Edit; typo typo typo
Source
