I use AI all the time for coding, but a tool that non-deterministically reaches potentially a different output than I would have produced myself is not analogous to typewriters.
It’s not exactly determinism, it’s authenticity. If we rewind time, of course the words would be different. It’s not relevant to my argument.
There’s a reason why the top comments of HN blog posts whine about articles that are clearly written by AI. I use AI constantly as a coding agent, but I care deeply about the authenticity of the words I write intended for other human beings to be my own.
> It’s not exactly determinism, it’s authenticity.
I hope you understand, by so glibly switching from "determinism" to "authenticity" you've just provided more evidence that this is just the latest excuse to hate.
But that aside - what happens in a couple years, when LLMs inevitably improve, and their writing is objectively superior to human writing? And people who just want to read well-written material won't care about the authenticity?
I suspect there will be another glib switch. Because the reality here is just that AI is hated. Full stop.
That's a terrible analogy. It's more like using a typewriter where the job is calligraphy.
I use LLMs at work all the time, and it truly does feel like somebody else coding for me, and me reviewing, cleaning up, and asking for changes. It's really not my work, nor is it my code, but I'm still fine bringing it in.
I also don't use LLMs on my personal code done in my free time because I want my brain to still be fully functional in a few years.
Yes, and all of them involve exercising your mind regularly. I could let LLMs do my personal projects for me and then try to make up the difference with brain teasers, language learning, etc. I choose to exercise my mind because I still love programming, including writing my own code.
I suspect that a lot of people who are going full hog on LLMs aren't actually making up the difference, and are simply offloading their thinking. I choose to not be one of those. I'll use them at work because they make me faster and most of the code is already not mine. It's a means to an end. My personal projects are for the fun and love of programming, not just to have some software in the end.
A more appropriate analogy for what you just described might be writing vs ghost writing.
But it's certainly not handwriting vs typewriter.
Note: there's no implied value judgement here.
My point is that the analogy that LLMs are equivalent to typewriters is fundamentally broken. Using an LLM to create text, and writing using writing tools, are simply completely different activities that just happen to lead to (at least superficially) the same outcomes.
Similarly, downloading a vase and 3D printing it isn't the same as making pottery. Programming a knitting machine to make socks for you isn't knitting. Putting text on paper using a printer isn't calligraphy.
And I'd argue we're going to collectively conclude that assembling software systems using AI isn't coding.
Again: no value judgement. But life isn't always just about outcomes. Process does, in fact, matter, and I think it's important we maintain these distinctions.
It's genuinely amazing and baffling to me that a non-trivial number of people around here don't seem to grok that.
Now think about what a typewriter does in that context.
Now think about what an LLM does in that context.
Can you reason about how those are vastly different tools within the context of writing or communication, so much so that the comparison doesn't actually make any sense?
Hint: it has nothing to do with determinism. It has to do with the nature of the work itself and the role of the person doing it.
As an aside, this whole exchange really is just a perfect encapsulation of the outcome-focused versus process-focused individual.
The outcome-focused person sees words in a document and whether an LLM produced them or a human typed them is a distinction without a difference.
The process-focused person is utterly baffled that anyone could think those are in any way equivalent.
HEH. I just read your comment three times and I definitely don't get it. I think its entire point is to express outrage about not getting it, rather than actually explain it.
Not your handwriting, not your work!