> When using a pen you become a poet ?
No. By definition, a poet writes poems. Not all pen use leads to poems.
By definition, engineers build systems. What else can you do with code (and LLMs; same thing) other than build systems?
> When using a pen you become a poet ?
No. By definition, a poet writes poems. Not all pen use leads to poems.
By definition, engineers build systems. What else can you do with code (and LLMs; same thing) other than build systems?
idk man, plenty of people have "ai" gf/bf/therapist, ask "ai" for vacation trip ideas, recipes, gym workouts, &c. I wouldn't even be surprised if most tokens were used on non software engineering tasks.
I have a zombie developer, coder, idk how to call them, in my team who doesn't talk to anyone, writes shit tier PRs and spends all day long talking to chatgpt. They're a prompter, a chatter, a waste of money, but certainly not an engineer
> idk man, plenty of people have "ai" gf/bf/therapist, ask "ai" for vacation trip ideas, recipes, gym workouts, &c.
Not without engineering a system to get the AI to generate a response they don't.
> non software engineering tasks.
There is no non-software engineering task when using an LLM. All LLM use first requires designing software to get the LLM to do anything. An LLM will not autonomously act on its own. It can only respond in accordance to the the program you have designed for it.
That program can be written in natural language, granted, but software programs are not limited by the particular language they are written in. Its not somehow not a program just because you didn't write machine code on punch cards.
In mechanical engineering you can be an engineer or a mechanic, or other things (like a hobbies or different degrees of casual work), and they're no interchangeable.
I think being an engineer implies it's a profession you've trained in and you're implementing the science behind it in a practical manor in some capacity (like a computer scientist studies computers, a computer engineer implements and builds the systems based upon this science).
> In mechanical engineering you can be an engineer or a mechanic, or other things
Sure. While some mechanics may sometimes find themselves having to design things to carry out their work (in which case they would be engineers during that time), generally speaking mechanics carry out the physical replacement of what engineers have already designed. They are not designing things themselves.
But there is no mechanic analog in computing. At least there isn't a human mechanic analog. One is always operating at the design level, regardless of whether the design is written in C, Rust, or natural language. All the engineering-adjacent work you find in other engineering disciplines is done by the computer in the software realm.
> I think being an engineer implies it's a profession you've trained in and you're implementing the science behind it in a practical manor in some capacity
That's what "professional engineer" implies, but we're talking about "engineer". There is no such connotations in the word engineer alone, hence the existence of the PE term.
I would say attaching things together with or from an LLM would be the analogy. Being a mechanic and being an engineer are both technical jobs which require skill, but one is design focused while the other is system focused.
I would also disagree that "professional engineer" is a meaningful distinction from engineer. I don't really think of an engineer as being something you can do casually, it's a profession.
Also re-reading my comment I should have said adjacent to mechanical engineering, generally you don't get a degree in mechanical engineering to become a mechanic.
> Being a mechanic and being an engineer are both technical jobs which require skill, but one is design focused while the other is system focused.
Right. And such software-based work is always design-focused. You're writing documents that specify how the computer is expected to function. The computer takes those specifications and turns it into something functional. I think you can make a good case the latter is system work, but not something humans participate in.
In the olden days we had to write those specifications in arcane languages that were a speciality to learn. Now you can write the specifications in plain English, more or less. That's evolutionary, but since the advent of the compiler we've always been moving towards the language being more and more like English (or insert other natural language, if you prefer). Such progress is nothing new.
Perhaps it's like the difference between a manual and automatic transmission. Gearheads worried about their personhood might try to argue otherwise, but in reality you aren't not a driver if your car has an automatic transmission. It is not the exact details of the tool that defines the act you are engaging in. Likewise, you don't suddenly stop being an engineer just because the tools have now made it "easy".
> I don't really think of an engineer as being something you can do casually, it's a profession.
You're always free to come up with your own pet definition, but per the record of how the word is most commonly used out there in the world, there is no connotations to one's skill, ability, quality, or anything of that nature that is normally associated with professional engineer. It only refers to the act itself in any capacity. Which, of course, is why we also coined the term "professional engineer". That would have be entirely pointless — and therefore would have never been adopted — if "engineer" already captured that sentiment under common use.
You can make a lot of slop of all different sorts with LLMs. That has very little in common with building systems.
"Slop" suggests that the only difference is in quality, but the definition of engineer says nothing of quality.
Perhaps you might consider using an LLM to build a system that creates a response that is more coherent?
> the definition of engineer says nothing of quality
The definition you used makes someone who maintain a twitter account or use a coffee machine an "engineer"... everyone is an engineer by that definition really
It's not just the definition I use, it is the most common definition people use according to the records we keep.
And yes, someone who builds a system to generate Twitter content or maintains a coffee machine are definitely engineers.
Professional engineering societies don't like that fact and often try to usurp the term for their own financial gain, but that's not how English works. Definitions derive from use, not what a small group of people wish were so, and the record that keeps track of use is abundantly clear how the word is most commonly used.
Slop doesn't suggest the difference is only in quality, but also in form. Words have meanings, ya know?
I can have an LLM generate me code-like text all day long, but that doesn't means it's building a system. Just like I can eat Chicken McNuggets all day long, but that doesn't mean I'm eating a roast chicken.
> I can have an LLM generate me code-like text all day long, but that doesn't means it's building a system.
I don't follow. An LLM doesn't magically output code-like text, or anything else for that matter, on a whim. You have to build a system that describes your intent to the machine. Only then might it output code-like text, if that's what your system describes. It's not the execution of your code that makes you an engineer. It's building a system that can be executed in the first place that makes you a (software) engineer.
You said a few comments upthread (and I quote): "What else can you do with code (and LLMs; same thing) other than build systems?"
There are many things you can do with LLMs other than build systems. That's my point. Using an LLM doesn't make you an engineer; that's preposterous.
> There are many things you can do with LLMs other than build systems.
Like what? The code-like output example clearly requires you to build a system before the LLM can evaluate your program. If I want an LLM to generate a bedtime story, I also need to build a system that defines that. Where do you find the escape?
Maybe you're thinking of AGI? While everyone has their own pet AGI definition, many see it as being the point where you no longer have to build the system and the machine can start to take on that role. But we don't have that yet, and isn't what we're talking about anyway.
wow epic comeback man can you share the prompt you used to generate it?
I'm told you don't need to build a prompt. That would be engineering, which apparently isn't involved in the use of LLMs.