I post
this mostly
not for the thing itself, which is kind of stupid, but for one of the comments under it.
One of the best descriptions I've seen in a while, not of LLM/AI itself, necessarily, but of people's reactions to/acceptance of LLM/AI, is
this:
"So often, the response to AI is 'this isn't useful for [thing I do] because it lacks the human creativity and ingenuity necessary to [do the thing that I do]. But I bet it would be really useful for [thing I don't do or know anything about but wrongfully think is mindless work devoid of creativity].'"I will elaborate on that a bit. If one says that wholesale use of AI is "okay" for creating large swaths of code (or, indeed, entire, whole-ass programs/applications), because coding is "mindless work devoid of creativity," then that's the equivalent of saying that it's okay to use AI to create large swaths of prose (or, indeed, entire, whole-ass novels), because writing is "mindless work devoid of creativity," or saying that it's okay to use AI to create larges swaths of lines/colors (or, indeed, entire, whole-ass drawings/paintings), because drawing/painting is "mindless work devoid of creativity." The former is just as ridiculous and untrue as the latter two are.
I'm not even saying that you can't use AI or AI-like tools at all for these things. If a webcomic creator, for instance, wants to use a copy/paste tool to reuse backgrounds they've already drawn once, instead of drawing the same thing by hand repeatedly in every panel, that's fine (as long as it wasn't a LLM that generated those backgrounds
for them out of whole cloth in the first place). If a writer has a recurring phrase that some character says in their book that they have set up to autocomplete when they start to type it, rather than having to type it out in full every time, that's fine (as long as it wasn't a LLM that generated said character and/or their recurring phrase out of thin air in the first place). I'm just saying treat "AI used for 'coding'" with the same respect/disdain, as the case may be, as you do for "AI used for 'writing'" or "AI used for 'imagery.'" Don't simply dismiss out of hand the "AI used for 'coding'" bit, just because you may not like/understand/do coding work yourself.
As for the article/blurb itself:
No, "AI code is"
not "different from AI art and writing." What
I don't want is AI
code slop in the games, and
that comes from outsourcing
programming to gen AI. The only
actual difference is that AI code slop isn't as readily visible in the end result as the AI "art" and "writing" slop is, but that just makes it actually even worse and more insidious, honestly.
"In a sense [Tim Sweeney] isn't wrong," First of all, Tim Sweeney
is fucking wrong, because him saying that Steam should get rid of the AI tag is asinine. I'm in favor of there being
more information available to the consumer, personally, not
less.
"but is there a difference between using AI for coding compared to creativity?" Second of all, as
the comment to which the above comment was replying, in agreement, also said:
"Coding is creativity."![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
