zlacker

[return to "I miss thinking hard"]
1. gyomu+v4[view] [source] 2026-02-04 04:42:51
>>jernes+(OP)
This March 2025 post from Aral Balkan stuck with me:

https://mastodon.ar.al/@aral/114160190826192080

"Coding is like taking a lump of clay and slowly working it into the thing you want it to become. It is this process, and your intimacy with the medium and the materials you’re shaping, that teaches you about what you’re making – its qualities, tolerances, and limits – even as you make it. You know the least about what you’re making the moment before you actually start making it. That’s when you think you know what you want to make. The process, which is an iterative one, is what leads you towards understanding what you actually want to make, whether you were aware of it or not at the beginning. Design is not merely about solving problems; it’s about discovering what the right problem to solve is and then solving it. Too often we fail not because we didn’t solve a problem well but because we solved the wrong problem.

When you skip the process of creation you trade the thing you could have learned to make for the simulacrum of the thing you thought you wanted to make. Being handed a baked and glazed artefact that approximates what you thought you wanted to make removes the very human element of discovery and learning that’s at the heart of any authentic practice of creation. Where you know everything about the thing you shaped into being from when it was just a lump of clay, you know nothing about the image of the thing you received for your penny from the vending machine."

◧◩
2. jstanl+AM[view] [source] 2026-02-04 10:57:33
>>gyomu+v4
But you can move a layer up.

Instead of pouring all of your efforts into making one single static object with no moving parts, you can simply specify the individual parts, have the machine make them for you, and pour your heart and soul into making a machine that is composed of thousands of parts, that you could never hope to make if you had to craft each one by hand from clay.

We used to have a way to do this before LLMs, of course: we had companies that employed many people, so that the top level of the company could simply specify what they wanted, and the lower levels only had to focus on making individual parts.

Even the person making an object from clay is (probably) not refining his own clay or making his own oven.

◧◩◪
3. ameliu+uN[view] [source] 2026-02-04 11:03:56
>>jstanl+AM
Yes, but bad ingredients do not make a yummy pudding.

Or, it's like trying to make a MacBook Pro by buying electronics boards from AliExpress and wiring them together.

◧◩◪◨
4. jstanl+ON[view] [source] 2026-02-04 11:06:50
>>ameliu+uN
I'd rather have a laptop made from AliExpress components than only have a single artisanal hand-crafted resistor.
◧◩◪◨⬒
5. ameliu+CR[view] [source] 2026-02-04 11:35:21
>>jstanl+ON
Yes, the point is that only if you're willing to accept crappy results then you can use AI to build bigger things.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. mlrtim+zV[view] [source] 2026-02-04 12:02:43
>>ameliu+CR
I was going to reply defending AI tooling and crappy results, but I think I'm done with it.

I think there are just a class of people know that think that you cannot get 'macbook' quality with a LLM. I don't know why I try to convince them, it's not in my benefit.

[go to top]