A classic tale from the music production world comes to mind:
"I thought using loops was cheating, so I programmed my own using samples. I then thought using samples was cheating, so I recorded real drums. I then thought that programming it was cheating, so I learned to play drums for real. I then thought using bought drums was cheating, so I learned to make my own. I then thought using premade skins was cheating, so I killed a goat and skinned it. I then thought that that was cheating too, so I grew my own goat from a baby goat. I also think that is cheating, but I’m not sure where to go from here. I haven’t made any music lately, what with the goat farming and all."
As a songwriter, drum hitter, and acoustic strummer, I am not good at drums (can play on beat, though), guitar (can strum all the cowboy chords, though), or singing (no caveat on this one).
So sometimes when I want to hear what my song COULD be if I were good at every one of those, I will use Suno. But I do not let it change my lyrics, or chose it's own arrangement. I will give it a VERY ROUGH demo (out of key singing, basic drums and strums, and it will "polish" my turds into really shiny turds.
No, it's using FL Studio's random sequence generator with a general MIDI instrument, exporting it, then saying it's a ballad you just composed. Or paying a ghostwriter to write on a topic, then saying it's a novel you just wrote.
> "Good artists copy, great artists steal." - Picasso
The problem being that the users of LLMs aren't even putting forth the effort to do the stealing themselves, which would at least have implied some level of discernment and artistic effort in selecting what to steal.
Like bad managers stealing credit for their subordinates' hard work, bad LLM advocates wish to normalize taking credit for the work the LLM does on their behalf.
That's like saying you aren't building a house if you use a hammer to drive nails instead of your hand. AI is just a tool like any other, and you use it to build things like you would any other tool.
A far more accurate analogy would be people saying someone didn't write a book if they hired a ghostwriter, which is generally acknowledged to be true. LLMs are much closer to being a ghostwriter than they are to an inert, non-powered hand tool.
> That's like saying you aren't building a house if you use a hammer to drive nails instead of your hand. AI is just a tool like any other, and you use it to build things like you would any other tool.
A coding agent is more like a carpenter, a mason, an electrician,... rather than a hammer in that case.
I wouldn't even compare it to a tool. People frequently "build their own house" where they sub out 75% of the skilled labor and act as a General Contractor/glorified gopher.
And you won't get purity tests from the layperson: in the end, you're responsible for the build quality so if you tirelessly labor/oversee those teams you're considered capable; if it ends sub-par, then you're a stooge.
"A game" is a different abstraction layer from "a piece of software", though. A game has designed mechanics, a scenario (level design, etc.), art/music assets, writing, and so on. I would say that if you're making all of those things yourself, but you're having an AI write the software that executes the game, then you're still "building a game" per se. "Developing a game" even.
Compare/contrast: people who develop games on top of high-level genre-specific game engines like RPG Maker are still considered to be "building a game." What's the difference between using a pre-made purpose-fit engine like RPG Maker, vs. asking an AI (or, for that matter, a contracted software company) to build you a custom purpose-fit engine?
I know now we all are somehow like 'product manager' when using agent/chatbot, and we just need to setup requirements and point out issues. But in game area, I am not so sure models/agent are capable enough, especially involves heavy graphic related development and human interaction things? Since from my personal experience, even codex and claude code not so stable and efficient when dealing visualisation things like figures, videos and even much easier one - web-browser.
A classic tale from the music production world comes to mind:
"I thought using loops was cheating, so I programmed my own using samples. I then thought using samples was cheating, so I recorded real drums. I then thought that programming it was cheating, so I learned to play drums for real. I then thought using bought drums was cheating, so I learned to make my own. I then thought using premade skins was cheating, so I killed a goat and skinned it. I then thought that that was cheating too, so I grew my own goat from a baby goat. I also think that is cheating, but I’m not sure where to go from here. I haven’t made any music lately, what with the goat farming and all."
Does prompting an AI music generation service count as making your own songs? I noticed you left that one out of your parable.
As a songwriter, drum hitter, and acoustic strummer, I am not good at drums (can play on beat, though), guitar (can strum all the cowboy chords, though), or singing (no caveat on this one).
So sometimes when I want to hear what my song COULD be if I were good at every one of those, I will use Suno. But I do not let it change my lyrics, or chose it's own arrangement. I will give it a VERY ROUGH demo (out of key singing, basic drums and strums, and it will "polish" my turds into really shiny turds.
Does snapping a photo with a camera count as making your own painting?
We don’t call the end result a painting though, we call it a photo. Theres probably some value to distinguishing between them.
A set of pleasing qualia.
If figma draws you a gradient, are you really a designer?
Probably yes; If Figma is deciding for you where the gradient goes, what colors it is, and what its purpose in the design is, then no.
it kinda is by showing you tools in a certain order and what defaults and so on
A designer, yes. A painter, no.
No, it's using FL Studio's random sequence generator with a general MIDI instrument, exporting it, then saying it's a ballad you just composed. Or paying a ghostwriter to write on a topic, then saying it's a novel you just wrote.
"Good artists copy, great artists steal." - Picasso
> "Good artists copy, great artists steal." - Picasso
The problem being that the users of LLMs aren't even putting forth the effort to do the stealing themselves, which would at least have implied some level of discernment and artistic effort in selecting what to steal.
Like bad managers stealing credit for their subordinates' hard work, bad LLM advocates wish to normalize taking credit for the work the LLM does on their behalf.
That's like saying you aren't building a house if you use a hammer to drive nails instead of your hand. AI is just a tool like any other, and you use it to build things like you would any other tool.
I'd say it's closer to a Roomba then a hammer -- if you just let a Roomba run around your living room, can you say you vacuumed?
Well, you tell your Roomba "clean the floor" but you don't ask an AI "make a game". You give it very specific instructions.
Specific compared to writing procedural code> Barely even by analogy, IMO
One could even argue what defines AI instructability is heuristics as opposed to specifics
A far more accurate analogy would be people saying someone didn't write a book if they hired a ghostwriter, which is generally acknowledged to be true. LLMs are much closer to being a ghostwriter than they are to an inert, non-powered hand tool.
> That's like saying you aren't building a house if you use a hammer to drive nails instead of your hand. AI is just a tool like any other, and you use it to build things like you would any other tool.
A coding agent is more like a carpenter, a mason, an electrician,... rather than a hammer in that case.
I wouldn't even compare it to a tool. People frequently "build their own house" where they sub out 75% of the skilled labor and act as a General Contractor/glorified gopher.
And you won't get purity tests from the layperson: in the end, you're responsible for the build quality so if you tirelessly labor/oversee those teams you're considered capable; if it ends sub-par, then you're a stooge.
> AI is just a tool like any other
Really? Last time I checked, other tools can operate without ripping off the works of millions of humans.
"A game" is a different abstraction layer from "a piece of software", though. A game has designed mechanics, a scenario (level design, etc.), art/music assets, writing, and so on. I would say that if you're making all of those things yourself, but you're having an AI write the software that executes the game, then you're still "building a game" per se. "Developing a game" even.
Compare/contrast: people who develop games on top of high-level genre-specific game engines like RPG Maker are still considered to be "building a game." What's the difference between using a pre-made purpose-fit engine like RPG Maker, vs. asking an AI (or, for that matter, a contracted software company) to build you a custom purpose-fit engine?
I know now we all are somehow like 'product manager' when using agent/chatbot, and we just need to setup requirements and point out issues. But in game area, I am not so sure models/agent are capable enough, especially involves heavy graphic related development and human interaction things? Since from my personal experience, even codex and claude code not so stable and efficient when dealing visualisation things like figures, videos and even much easier one - web-browser.
This is such a horrible cringe and bad faith take.
Same idea that sends people down needless game engine development / procrastination rabbit holes.
Eating food doesn't count if you didn't grow it yourself.