I've been part of open source for most of my life. This year, the projects I love started closing their doors to outside contributors, and I don't blame them one bit, but it makes me sad.
A personal look at how AI is changing open source as I've known it.
I recently got an iPod classic and none of the Linux apps that should have worked for uploading music to it did. So what do I do in this situation? I saw that libgpod exists, so now I have to spend hours learning and writing a program, or give up and install rockbox, or just plain give up?
No, I asked AI to make me a GTK 4 app, and it makes one in ten minutes.
I don’t use AI for personal projects because it sucks the fun out of doing them, but for troubleshooting problems on my computer that I don’t or couldn’t care to learn about, they are a revelation.
I’m not the parent poster, but I’ll give my stab at that question.
It’s because to some people (myself included, and I assume a lot of people on this website too) the process of discovery, of learning, of getting stuck, of despairing, of ahas, and of figuring shit out is the most amazing fun imaginable. After a hug from my loved ones, I scarcely know of a better feeling than having solved a hard problem (meaning a problem that was hard for me)! That’s why not!
In addition to being fun, we also find it useful (to anyone, also those who don’t find it fun) as a way of exercising one’s brain. As a researcher, I believe it’s also something that inherently drives people who seek out that profession.
Of course, everyone gets to pick their own fun. Lots of people seem to like singing and dancing, for instance. I don’t. But I understand enough about fun and inherent drive not to show up at a song retreat and ask “ugh, why do you guys even do this, skilled audio technicians can synthesize a much better voice than that!”
It’s because to some people (myself included, and I assume a lot of people on this website too) the process of discovery, of learning, of getting stuck, of despairing, of ahas, and of figuring shit out is the most amazing fun imaginable. After a hug from my loved ones, I scarcely know of a better feeling than having solved a hard problem (meaning a problem that was hard for me)! That’s why not!
Okay, and like I said, I do too. The problem is that I don’t like doing that for everything in my life. Some problems are not actually hard, they are simply tedious (to me!).
Honestly the implication that I don’t is kind of insulting!
Of course, everyone gets to pick their own fun. Lots of people seem to like singing and dancing, for instance. I don’t. But I understand enough about fun and inherent drive not to show up at a song retreat and ask “ugh, why do you guys even do this, skilled audio technicians can synthesize a much better voice than that!”
That is simply not what I’m doing at all. I made an app, for my self, that saved me time to get back to solving the difficult problems that I enjoy solving. That doesn’t meant that someone who enjoys working in that domain would not have a fun time working on that problem, it just means I don’t want to wait around for them to get my iPod working
Okay, and like I said, I do too. The problem is that I don’t like doing that for everything in my life. Some problems are not actually hard, they are simply tedious (to me!).
Of course. But lots of people who frequent this site do consider problems like
I saw that libgpod exists, so now I have to spend hours learning and writing a program
to be genuine fun! Again, nobody is saying that you have to share in our idea of fun. But you did ask why people would find LLMs “not awesome” (which is what you asked “why” to). And you got answers. Now you’re saying that those answers don’t apply to you. That’s fine. But they do apply to us who gave them!
I’m not saying they’re awesome. I’m agreeing with the grandparent that says they are:
awesome for end users
You can dislike LLMs because they suck the fun out of programming, but some people don’t like programming so it doesn’t make sense to dislike how other people use them to avoid that!
Even the most LLM-happy programmer I know is clear that you need to verify the LLM’s work. Does the end user who doesn’t like programming suffer through that verification? Or do they just use the output unchecked, which I assume you’d agree is not “awesome”?
The real line is not whether they can check the output. The real line is whether they can both understand and accept the error rate.
And there are not so few things where (a) «works 90% of the time, gives weird garbage the remaining 10% of the time» is useful if it is cheap enough, (b) getting to 90% does not take too many «Please fix this problem» promtps (with manual retesting of previous issues, as by assumption forcing the LLM to build a reliable regression test suite is outside the user’s qualification).
To borrow the example elsewhere from the conversation on this page — sometimes one needs to copy a playlist perfectly because this is the music for a carefully staged event; sometimes even a maliciously selected 90% out of a shuffled playlist is close enough for a morning run.
Can you explain this emotion logically so we can all understand it, despite the fact that it is absolutely obvious what your stance is? Make sure to not include anything difficult that necessitates us extending our thinking beyond what is in directly in front of our eyes or to do with our own personal desires.
I don’t know man, feels like you’re not allowed to feel emotions about these things. “This new power plant delivers 2x the power at 20x the carbon emissions, it’s awesome!”. It’s clear as day why someone is opposed. The feigned shock, as though half the populace doesn’t feel this way, is grating.
What’s even more grating is that the Overton window has shifted so far that you’re not allowed to reference the negative externalities anymore. “Ethics aside” has become the modus operandi. Anyone who does goes into this is a killjoy and a loser.
We’re on a programming forum, so it’s a given that people here care about the craft itself.
But there are people who don’t want to program. To them software is just a hassle standing between them and their goal.
That’s normal. Not everyone wants to cook fine cuisine, many people get fast food. Not everyone wants to make custom furniture from the finest oak, plenty are happy with IKEA, etc.
And now software is moving beyond artisanal passionately crafted projects, and machine-extruded code nuggets are on the menu.
Craft vs. mass is a false equivalence. LLMs are not the IKEA of software as their products are created with precision. Writing code without LLMs is not using hand tools instead of power tools. I use efficient and precise power tools when I’m woodworking and when I’m programming. I cut rabbet joints on my table saw instead of cutting dovetails with a hand saw. I use Emacs instead of Notepad. LLMs are something else entirely because they are inherently probabilistic black boxes. They resemble slot machines a lot more than CNC machines.
“Awesome” is not the word I’d use.
score 1 · canonical
Why not? It genuinely is amazing.
I recently got an iPod classic and none of the Linux apps that should have worked for uploading music to it did. So what do I do in this situation? I saw that libgpod exists, so now I have to spend hours learning and writing a program, or give up and install rockbox, or just plain give up?
No, I asked AI to make me a GTK 4 app, and it makes one in ten minutes.
I don’t use AI for personal projects because it sucks the fun out of doing them, but for troubleshooting problems on my computer that I don’t or couldn’t care to learn about, they are a revelation.
score 15 · canonical
I’m not the parent poster, but I’ll give my stab at that question.
It’s because to some people (myself included, and I assume a lot of people on this website too) the process of discovery, of learning, of getting stuck, of despairing, of ahas, and of figuring shit out is the most amazing fun imaginable. After a hug from my loved ones, I scarcely know of a better feeling than having solved a hard problem (meaning a problem that was hard for me)! That’s why not!
In addition to being fun, we also find it useful (to anyone, also those who don’t find it fun) as a way of exercising one’s brain. As a researcher, I believe it’s also something that inherently drives people who seek out that profession.
Of course, everyone gets to pick their own fun. Lots of people seem to like singing and dancing, for instance. I don’t. But I understand enough about fun and inherent drive not to show up at a song retreat and ask “ugh, why do you guys even do this, skilled audio technicians can synthesize a much better voice than that!”
score 1 · canonical
Okay, and like I said, I do too. The problem is that I don’t like doing that for everything in my life. Some problems are not actually hard, they are simply tedious (to me!).
Honestly the implication that I don’t is kind of insulting!
That is simply not what I’m doing at all. I made an app, for my self, that saved me time to get back to solving the difficult problems that I enjoy solving. That doesn’t meant that someone who enjoys working in that domain would not have a fun time working on that problem, it just means I don’t want to wait around for them to get my iPod working
score 1 · canonical
Of course. But lots of people who frequent this site do consider problems like
to be genuine fun! Again, nobody is saying that you have to share in our idea of fun. But you did ask why people would find LLMs “not awesome” (which is what you asked “why” to). And you got answers. Now you’re saying that those answers don’t apply to you. That’s fine. But they do apply to us who gave them!
score 1 · canonical
I’m not saying they’re awesome. I’m agreeing with the grandparent that says they are:
You can dislike LLMs because they suck the fun out of programming, but some people don’t like programming so it doesn’t make sense to dislike how other people use them to avoid that!
score 1 · canonical
Even the most LLM-happy programmer I know is clear that you need to verify the LLM’s work. Does the end user who doesn’t like programming suffer through that verification? Or do they just use the output unchecked, which I assume you’d agree is not “awesome”?
score 1 · canonical
The real line is not whether they can check the output. The real line is whether they can both understand and accept the error rate.
And there are not so few things where (a) «works 90% of the time, gives weird garbage the remaining 10% of the time» is useful if it is cheap enough, (b) getting to 90% does not take too many «Please fix this problem» promtps (with manual retesting of previous issues, as by assumption forcing the LLM to build a reliable regression test suite is outside the user’s qualification).
To borrow the example elsewhere from the conversation on this page — sometimes one needs to copy a playlist perfectly because this is the music for a carefully staged event; sometimes even a maliciously selected 90% out of a shuffled playlist is close enough for a morning run.
score 1 · canonical
This sounds like all the worst parts about the non-software world brought to the software world. Yuck!
score 1 · canonical
I can’t imagine anything I’d care about less as if it’s for their own personal use.
score 1 · canonical
Then we’re just very different people.
score 1 · canonical
deleted by creator
Can you explain this emotion logically so we can all understand it, despite the fact that it is absolutely obvious what your stance is? Make sure to not include anything difficult that necessitates us extending our thinking beyond what is in directly in front of our eyes or to do with our own personal desires.
I don’t know man, feels like you’re not allowed to feel emotions about these things. “This new power plant delivers 2x the power at 20x the carbon emissions, it’s awesome!”. It’s clear as day why someone is opposed. The feigned shock, as though half the populace doesn’t feel this way, is grating.
score 2 · canonical
What’s even more grating is that the Overton window has shifted so far that you’re not allowed to reference the negative externalities anymore. “Ethics aside” has become the modus operandi. Anyone who does goes into this is a killjoy and a loser.
score 1 · canonical
You’re being so vague and unspecific here that there’s no point in responding to you because I’d have to imagine what your point actually is.
score 1 · canonical
Let me clear it up: using LLMs is a disservice to yourself and the entire world and thinking they are “genuinely amazing” is quite sad.
score 2 · canonical
We’re on a programming forum, so it’s a given that people here care about the craft itself.
But there are people who don’t want to program. To them software is just a hassle standing between them and their goal.
That’s normal. Not everyone wants to cook fine cuisine, many people get fast food. Not everyone wants to make custom furniture from the finest oak, plenty are happy with IKEA, etc.
And now software is moving beyond artisanal passionately crafted projects, and machine-extruded code nuggets are on the menu.
score 1 · canonical
Craft vs. mass is a false equivalence. LLMs are not the IKEA of software as their products are created with precision. Writing code without LLMs is not using hand tools instead of power tools. I use efficient and precise power tools when I’m woodworking and when I’m programming. I cut rabbet joints on my table saw instead of cutting dovetails with a hand saw. I use Emacs instead of Notepad. LLMs are something else entirely because they are inherently probabilistic black boxes. They resemble slot machines a lot more than CNC machines.
score 1 · canonical
Man I don’t care I just wanted my iPod to work so I could use my phone less
score 2 · canonical
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator