zlacker

>>gregor+(OP)
If my future career consists of constantly prompting and code-reviewing a semi-competent, nonhuman coder in order to eventually produce something decent, then I want no part in that future, even if it's more "efficient" in the sense of taking less time overall. That sounds extremely frustrating, personally unrewarding, alienating. I've read the prompts and the commit messages, and to be honest, I don't have the patience to deal with a Claude-level coder. I'd be yelling at the idiot and shaking my fists the whole time. I'd rather just take more time and write the code myself. It's much more pleasant that way. This future of A.I. work sounds like a dystopia to me. I didn't sign up for that. I never wanted to be a glorified babysitter.

It feels infinitely worse than mentoring an inexperienced engineer, because Claude is inhuman. There's no personal relationship, it doesn't make human mistakes or achieve human successes, and if Claude happens to get better in the future, that's not because you personally taught it anything. And you certainly can't become friends.

They want to turn artists and craftsmen into assembly line supervisors.

>>lapcat+UH2
> They want to turn artists and craftsmen into assembly line supervisors.

the same was uttered by blacksmiths and other craftsman who has been displaced by technology. Yet they are mercilessly crushed.

Your enjoyment of a job is not a consideration to those paying you to do it; and if there's a more efficient way, it will be adopted. The idea that your job is your identity may be at fault here - and when someone's identity is being threatened (as it very much is right now with these new AI tools), they respond very negatively.