I guess, but this isn't just some claude-kiddy, he's the creator of Three.js. it's like slamming Linus for using AI on the Linux kernel. He knows what he's doing.

I know who he is and I don't care what he does with ai.

To me these little challenges are about improving programming skills, showing creativity, and mostly just for fun. So using LLMs on 'codevember' feels weird. That doesn't mean I'm blaming him for it, I'm just having a hard time accepting it.

If coding is for you about writing beautiful code, then yes.

Many of us are in the game because of the love for building things.

> If coding is for you about writing beautiful code

...when did I ever said that?

What are you saying then?

And why are you implying that using AI does not improve those skills?

You can learn nothing or become a master both ways. AI will just give you some tangible results first but in the end it depends solely on you.

> What are you saying then?

I literally said that "I'm just having hard time accepting it."

> And why are you implying that using AI does not improve those skills?

I'm not.

So "hacker man yelling at the claude"

I can't understand how and why you keep thinking of things I never said or even remotely implied.

So you get the same joy from building things even when you outsource the "building" to some other person?

Not OP but if it comes to Claude or OpenAI use, that does make me roll my eyes.

That said, I use local AI on GPUs I own, so they are -my- tools on -my- property to help me research debug and help me execute my ideas faster than I could before, so more things get done than were done previously.

I keep my AI rack under my 3D printer because they are the same type of tool to me.

A big chunk of the software development industry is not typing code but figuring out what code to write in the first place.

If you want to draw out the construction analogy, ask a mason or carpenter if they'd rather be an architect. (a lot would probably not want to, but I know a few people in the trades that can do a lot more than just welding two pieces of steel together, it's just that their job is the welding part.

Actually this will be one of the challenges; LLM assisted coding has empowered people to be more decision makers, lead developers, architects, etc than code monkeys. But it's a pyramid, there's only so many lead developers you feasibly need on a project.)

> empowered people to be more decision makers, lead developers, architects

Add a "pseudo" before each and we would be in total agreement.

Do I get the same satisfaction from defining and directing a project that my team at work implements?

Yes. Writing code was always fun but running a project is itself a systems engineering problem. Especially if you’re the one defining project scope.

So yes, absolutely it is the same level of joy. The code I wrote was just the method needed to solve the low-level problem but it was never the entire problem space.

I can see my fingerprints all over the user facing design and I can see all the places where I agonized over different approaches to maximize user enjoyment. Seeing the solutions manifest is thrilling frankly. I see users of LLMs as filling a similar role to mine in this respect.

That said, I understand that not everyone enjoys the entirety of the problem space to the same degree and so I can see how a reasonable group of people might not find the higher-level puzzle as enjoyable as its low-level counterpart just as there are those who might find the low-level tedious instead of rewarding.

There is a point in the LLM usage spectrum where I feel that I am not really understanding the stuff I am creating. I can have the LLM write some code, without starting to feel this. But it is only a small amount of code...

Imagine you're getting an extension to your house. You might not be an architect, an electrician, a plasterer, a carpenter, an interior designer, a grounds worker, a gardener, a labourer or any other profession I've missed off (apologies) but you get a great sense of joy from designing and seeing your extension built.

You outsourced literally everything, you didn't lay a single brick, didn't calculate a single beams "load-bearing" capacity but at the end you have this awesome extension you can live in that brings you joy. There's going to be snags here and there as there always is with anything, even if you crafted and did it all by hand, but seeing it built and guiding and adapting things along the way is the fun part.

This analogy only makes sense if you think there is zero value in actually crafting something yourself.

The parent poster’s post is amusing because I did all of those things. I framed out an addition to my house. I demoed all of the living spaces, installed insulation, hung drywall, did the trim (which was difficult to learn!), installed windows. I also built a patio (with a shovel!), built a fence, planted an orchard, etc. I did these things because, although I have the money to pay others, it was 1) deeply satisfying and 2) I wanted it done right. I think lots of technical people think that we can’t do it right because it’s not our area but—if you care, you will do it right.

I hired somebody to do the toilets. Fuck that.

Writing software and having software running on a computer is not the point of all of this. The point is to then use these tools to improve your physical world outside of the computer, and to use the computer to improve your mind and then apply that to how you live in the physical living world. The computer is not your friend, your colleague, or your enemy, it's a screwdriver the over excited gave a celebrity complex.

yeah man the point of software development is to develop software that is useful, helpful, thoughtful, creative, productive, or just cool. For me and most non hardcore engineers like on hackernews, the outcome is all that matters.

Creativity is about coming up with your vision with the tools at hand in my eyes. I would still argue in situations like this you need a sense of style to understand what works and what doesn't.

I thought so too, but AI is kinda destroying everything fun. Game jams, Advent of code, code codevember apparently. To me personally it's super sad to see.

I agree given that it’s about competition and not just having fun.

Ugh, fun.

[delayed]

i don't care about leaderboards but i do care about the community of like-minded people that comes with these kinds of competitions, which AI larpers totally eliminate

i don't know, i vibe code a lot but could never come up with that. To me, it is pretty much human creativity.

[delayed]

The creativity space moves. Now, it has moved to how you use your tokens.

For some..

And some people still make stone tools as a creative pursuit. Everything is valid as creativity.

People still paint, despite photoshop. People still play instruments, despite Digital Audio Workstations.

There is art in the craft, and more importantly enjoyment in the craft.

I wouldn't AI generate a song because all of the fun for me and my friends is in the playing and watching. You will find that's true very often for creative people and those who enjoy their work.

Are you suggesting that artists who work primarily in Photoshop or DAWs aren't creative and/or don't have fun?

No

I see plenty of creativity on display here. I haven't seen anything like this and it was delightful. Also makes me want to explore more that I can do to create visualizations like this.

The fact that it was vibe coded matters very little to me. Gate keeping the concept of a codevember doesnt seem very codevember to me.

A lot of established engineers are using LLMs. I am not sure why that is still a stigma. Our industry is going through major changes, that is well established. I would be surprised if someone is not using LLMs to produce cool experiments.

> I am not sure why that is still a stigma.

> isn't the whole point of these one month challenges(genuary, nodevember, inktober, etc) about human creativity? Like game jams?

Human creativity goes into "what to build", not "how to build it".

A Photograph is, mechanically, 100% machine-created. But we still call photographers "creative" for their work on picking what to photograph, how to frame it, timing the shot, etc..

Honestly, I think it's wonderful that editors are finally getting some credit for the creativity they bring to the process. There's plenty of writing about how famous films like "Star Wars" often owe a lot to their editing, even though that traditionally doesn't get credited as "creative" work.

Is someone who commissions a painting considered creative?

Commissioning a painting, if it needs describing a scene, a thought or some direction, then yes.

This is literally what photographers do. Most do not even deal with exposure or any other setting. "Auto".

Revered photographers do a lot more than push a button. But I agree pushing a button and getting a result without much thought or effort generally doesn't make for an interesting creative work, most professional photographers would agree too

> Most do not even deal with exposure or any other setting. "Auto".

Professional ones, this is completely incorrect. Maybe hobbyists? But even then, not many.

Creativity is defined by what one did in the creative process, not whether you did something else outside of the creative process or not. I.e. if the only thing you do is say "make me a piece of art, I'll pay you $x" then you had 0 creative involvement. Not because you paid for it, but because of the lack of doing anything during the creation process.

The same is true of using any tool. If you just click a premade and generic "process photo" button in an image editor for every photo you get then you're doing no creative work (unless that whole action is a meta statement itself or something). If you mess with the different options and settings to find the one which matches your creative vision then you've played a part in the creative process.

> Human creativity goes into "what to build", not "how to build it".

I dont know if i've ever seen a message miss the point more than this one.

> Human creativity goes into "what to build", not "how to build it".

This is nonsense, right? If I decided "hey wouldn't it be cool if there was a really interesting painting of a dude" that isn't an interesting creative expression

Explore the editing angle: do you really think that absolutely nothing of artistic value would be lost if we just stopped editing films entirely? Or is it clear that an editor can bring value simply by offering input?

Certainly the extent of the input matters - "cool art of a dude" is a very generic concept, but at a certain point, just writing the idea down has to count as creative, because otherwise books are all uncreative.

> Explore the editing angle:

I am not ChatGPT, do not talk to humans like this

[delayed]

I've been thinking about this and it's still difficult to accept it. It feels like making generative ai art and posting it with hashtag inktober.

You could say that 'the artist' guided the genai to show creativity, ai is just a tool, and maybe the process helped improve their drawing skills.

Yes, I agree. It's just... maybe it's because I won't be amazed by coding challenge posts anymore like I used to, just like I'm not excited about hobby coding projects these days.

You do realize who this is, right? Do you know how many manually written jams/demos mrdoob has directly enabled by his three.js work? Can we please, please, try and fight the urge to driveby this sort of work?

That he did so much great work in the past makes it all the more depressing that he has gone full-on slopper.