zlacker

I’m arguing that there is no objectively or technically correct solutions to the work engineers are hired to do. You don’t “solve” a startup CEO or corp VP who changes their mind about the direction of the business every week. Ditto for consumers and whatever the latest fad they’re chasing is. They are agents of chaos and we are the ones stuck trying to wrangle technology to do their bidding. As long as they are human, we’ll need the general intelligence of humans (or equivalent) to figure out what to code or prompt or install.

>>akisel+(OP)
In the sense that someone asks "I need a program that takes x and does y" and the AI is able to solve that problem satisfactorily, it's an objectively correct solution. There will be nuance to that problem, and how its solved, but the end results are always objectively correct answers of "it either works, or it doesn't."

>>oldstr+Yk
Case in point, I guess :-)

>>oldstr+Yk
I think in both domains there are parts which are purely technical (wrong or right) and others which are well ... an art.

In art these parts are often overlooked, but they are significant none the less. E.g. getting the proportions right is an objective metric and really off putting if it is wrong.

And in programming the "art" parts are often overlooked and precisely the reason why I feel that most software of today is horrible. It is just made to barely "work" and get the technical parts right up to spec and that's it. Beyond that nobody cares about resource efficiency, performance, security, maintainability or yet alone elegance.