alt Hacker NewsThere seems to be two kinds of people whenever this conversation comes up.
If I take an analogy of two kinds of people who visit Yosemite National Park, person A would refuse to see Glacier Point unless they embark on the long all day hike themselves, while person B would happily drive to the parking lot, get out, take photos with their families and admire the view.
Either person cannot understand the other's, and yet both people will go out of their way to make the other one feel guilty for their approach if pushed.
When they built the parking lot and the roads to get there, it probably upset a lot of people at the time (only speculating). Yet, the park invests and maintains the hiking trails just as well. So if anything, the park takes the very human opinion that you should take the option that works for you, because the view is worth it.
The people who are investing in machine learning are OBSESSED with efficiency. Where I would say, v1 of Co-pilot was entirely conceived as an AI system meant to help ME as a software engineer, claude code is entirely conceived and built to replace ME as a software engineer.
Where co-pilot was a choice that I made, and willingly enabled in my workflow, claude code was forced on me by my employer. In my entire long career, we were always given autonomy to decide what tools and systems we needed to get our jobs done. This was the first time it felt like a few invisible power brokers at the top decided for me.
Anyway, my point in all this ranting, is that, unlike national parks that go out of their way to be accessible for everyone, generative AI has firmly sided with one kind of person's life philosophy at the expense of the others, yet we all still have to work together. Change is hard for sure.
I find that Camp B is a lot more likely to not understand Camp A than the other way around. Both enjoy the outcome of "we made something cool", but Camp A more heavily values the journey to get there, and many in that camp aren't particularly bothered if they didn't actually get there if the journey was good. Camp B was never interested in the journey but absolutely wants an outcome. Unfortunately, the voices of Camp B seem a lot louder, and Camp A can come off like old farts.
The thing about your analogy is that the person in Camp B might seem a bit silly to most people at face value. Even your average person values doing a bit more than sticking to the parking lot in a beautiful national park they may not visit again for decades. The reason I bring this up is that I personally don't begrudge Camp B. How can I not sympathize with people who want to shape reality to their imagination? I understand that.
Where I divorce from Camp B is on the idea that the process behind developing the architecture and the code software is inherently a roadblock and essentially has no value. They produce these specious claims like "code was never the hard part" because they view code as something completely separate from the thing the code produces, which was simply not true because the very nature of code is in describing the thing that it's implementing. The typical Camp B mindset seems to misunderstand or hate this fact of reality, and many of them don't even seem to get that other human minds have other perfectly valid objectives behind the things that they do. There is nothing wrong with becoming a programmer because you enjoy and thrive in the process in writing software, but even before LLMs, we have been increasingly infantilizing that desire because it's not seen as productive or obviously revenue producing. Valuing the process is viewed by outsiders as dilly-dallying when, in actuality, many of the greatest things in not just computer programming but technology and science have been a result of Camp A people investing effort in exploring and executing theory that Camp B has no interest in.
This is why I get pissed off when I hear that "code was never the hard part." It's like, screw you people, my job being paid to write code to satisfy the requirements of my employer/customer was and is hard. What's changed are the requirements; the new requirements are to not give a fuck about quality and sustainability and to maximize speed at which boxes can be ticked for project management. This doesn't mean that making software that's not a piece of shit isn't still a hard problem. There's a dearth of projects built with AI in the last 3 years, the vast majority of which are polished turds that have been completely abandoned by their authors. What does that tell you?
Camp B should, by all means, go ahead and do their thing. I think it's great that technology has made it possible for someone to build an app or a site with no background knowledge or hiring of contractors. What they don't deserve is disrespect Camp A and talk down to them because they find programming to be a nuisance.