> Video games stand out as one market where consumers have pushed back effectively
No, it's simply untrue. Players only object against AI art assets. And only when they're painfully obvious. No one cares about how the code is written.
If you actually read the words used in Steam AI survey you'll know Steam has completely caved in for AI-gen code as well. It's specifically worded like this:
> content such as artwork, sound, narrative, localization, etc.
No 'code' or 'programming.'
If game players are the most anti-AI group then it's crystal clear that LLM coding is inevitable.
> This stands in stark contrast to code, which generally doesn't suffer from re-use at all, or may even benefit from it, if it's infrastructure.
Yeah, exactly. And LLM help developers save time from writing the same thing that has be done by other developers for a thousand times. I don't know how one can spins this as a bad thing.
> Classic procedural generation is noteworthy here as a precedent, which gamers were already familiar with, because by and large it has failed to deliver.
Spore is well acclaimed. Minecraft is literally the most sold game ever. The fact one developer fumbled it doesn't make the idea of procedural generation bad. This is a perfect example of that a tool isn't inherently good or bad. It's up to the tool's wielder.
If you read the next couple of paragraphs, the author addresses this:
> That said, Steam's policy has been recently updated to exclude dev tools used for "efficiency gains", but which are not used to generate content presented to players.
I only quoted the first paragraph, but there is more.
Also "AI" has been in gaming, especially mobile gaming, for a literal decade already.
Household name game studios have had custom AI art asset tooling for a long time that can create art quickly, using their specific style.
AI is a tool and as Steve Jobs said, you can hold it wrong. It's like plastic surgery, you only notice the bad ones and object to them. An expert might detect the better jobs, but the regular folk don't know and for the most part don't care unless someone else tells them to care.
An LLM has never saved me time. It has always produced something that doesn't quite work, has the rough shape of what I want, but somehow always gets all the details wrong.
I can type up what I want much faster and be sure it's at least solving the right problem, even if it may have bugs.
There are also tools to generate boilerplate that work much much better than LLMs. And they're deterministic.
What the author and many others find hard to digest is that LLMs are surfacing the reality that most of our work is a small bit of novelty against boiler plate redundant code.
Most of what we do is programming is some small novel idea at high level and repeatable boilerplate at low level. A fair question is: why hasn’t the boilerplate been automated as libraries or other abstractions? LLMs are especially good at fuzzy abstracting repeatable code, and it’s simply not possible to get the same result from other manual methods.
I empathise because it is distressing to realise that most of value we provide is not in those lines of code but in that small innovation at the higher layer. No developer wants to hear that, they would like to think each lexicon is a creation from their soul.
Libraries create boundaries, which are in most cases arbitrary, that then limit the way you can interact with code, creating more boilerplate to get what you want from a library.
Abstractions are the source of bloat. Without abstractions you can always reduce bloat, or you can reduce bloat in your glue, but you can't reduce glue.
It takes discipline to NOT create arbitrary function signatures and short-lived intermediate data structures or type definitions. This is the beginning of boilerplate.
So many advances in removing boilerplate are realizing your 5 function calls and 10 intermediate data structures or type definitions, essentially compute a thing that you can do with 0 function calls and 0 custom datatypes and less lines of code.
The abstraction hides how simple the thing you want is.
Problem is that all open source code looks like the bloat described above, so LLMs have no idea how to actually write code that is without boilerplate. The only place where I've seen it work is in shaders, which are usually written to avoid common pitfalls of abstraction.
LLMs are incapable of writing a big program in 1 function and 1 file, that does what you want. Splitting the program into functions or even multiple files, is a step you do after a lot of time, yet all open source looks nothing like that.
Yep, people not understanding the value of abstraction is exactly why LLM coded apps are going to be a shit show. You could use them to come up with better abstractions, but most will not.
I wrote a book a while back where I argued that coding involves choosing what to work on, writing it, and then debugging it, and that we tend to master these steps in reverse chronological order.
It's weird to look at something that recent and think how dated it reads today. I also wrote about the Turing test as some major milestone of AI development, when in fact the general response to programs passing the Turing test was to shrug and minimize it
This is actually quite an insightful comment into the mindset of the tech set vs. the many writers and artists whose only 'boilerplate redundant code' is the language itself, and a loose aggregate of ideas and philosophies.
Probably the original sin here is that we started calling them programming languages instead of just 'computer code'.
Also - most of your work is far more than mere novelty! There are intangibles like your intellectual labor and time.
Abstraction isn't free... even if you had the correct abstraction and the tools to remove the parts you don't need for deployment, there is still the cost of understanding and compiling.
There is also the cost reason, somebody trying to sell an abstraction will try to monetize it and this means not everyone will want/be able to use it (or it will take forever/be unfinished if it's open/free).
There's also the platform lockin/competition aspect...
FORTRAN ("formula translator") was one of the first programs ever written and it was supposed to make coding obsolete. Scientists will now be able to just type in formulas and the computer will just calculate the result, imagine that!
We already have tools to generate boilerplate, and they work exceptionally well. The LLM just produces nondeterministic boilerplate.
I also don't know what work you do, but I would not characterize the codebases I work in as "small bits of novelty" on boilerplate. Software engineering is always a holistic systems undertaking, where every subcomponent and the interactions between them have to be considered.
Boilerplate has been with us since the dawn of programming.
I still think LLMs as fancy autocomplete is the truth and not even a dig. Autocomplete is great. It works best when there’s one clear output desired (even if you don’t know exactly what it is yet). Nobody is surprised when you type “cal” and California comes up in an address form, why should we be surprised when you describe a program and the code is returned?
Knowledge has the same problem as cosmology, the part we can observe doesn’t seem to account for the vast majority of what we know us out there. Symbolic knowledge encompasses unfathomable multitudes and will eventually be solved by AI but the “dark matter” of knowledge that can’t easily be expressed in language or math is still out in the wild
Time to learn design, how to talk to customers, and how to discover unsolved problems. Used right LLMs should improve your software quality. Make stuff that matters that you can be proud of.
I think it says a lot about this opinion piece that the people agreeing with it are posting short comments saying "So true!" and "Great!" whilst the people criticizing it are writing paragraphs of well-spoken criticism.
> This sort of protectionism is also seen in e.g. controlled-appelation foods like artisanal cheese or cured ham. These require not just traditional manufacturing methods and high-quality ingredients from farm to table, but also a specific geographic origin.
Maybe "Artisanal Coding" will be a thing in the future?
Like you can still make Karelian pies[0] anywhere, but unless you follow the exact recipe, you can't sell them as "Karelian pies". It's good for the heritage and good for the customers.
You can also make any cheeses and wines and whatever you like, it's just how you name them and market them that's regulated.
>If you ask me, no court should have ever rendered a judgement on whether AI output as a category is legal or copyrightable, because none of it is sourced. The judgement simply cannot be made, and AI output should be treated like a forgery unless and until proven otherwise.
Guilty until proven innocent will satisfy the author's LLM-specific point of contention, but it is hardly a good principle.
You are missing the point of the author. He literally said no court should have rendered a judgement, that's the exact opposite of guilty until proven innocent. Guilty means a court has made a judgement.
He is proposing to not make a judgement at all. If the AI company CLAIMS something they have to prove it. Like they do in science or something. Any claim is treated as such, a claim. The trick is to not even claim anything, let the users all on their own come to the conclusion that it's magic. And it's true that LLMs by design cannot cite sources. Thus they cannot by design tell you if they made something up with disregard to it making sense or working, if they just copy and pasted it, something that either works or is crap, or if they somehow created something new that is fantastic.
All we ever see are the success stories. The success after the n-th try and tweaking of the prompt and the process of handling your agents the right way. The hidden cost is out there, barely hidden.
This ambiguity is benefitting the AI companies and they are exploiting it to the maximum. Going even as far as illegally obtaining pirated intellectual property from an entity that is banned in many countries on one end of their utilization pipeline and selling it as the biggest thing ever at the other end. And yes, all the doomsday stories of AI taking over the world are part of the marketing hype.
> Whether something is a forgery is innate in the object and the methods used to produce it. It doesn't matter if nobody else ever sees the forged painting, or if it only hangs in a private home. It's a forgery because it's not authentic.
On a philosophical level I do not get the discussions about paintings. I love a painting for what it is not for being the first or the only one. An artist that paints something that I can't distinguish from a Van Gogh is a very skillful artist and the painting is very beautiful. Me labeling "authentic" it or not should not affect it's artistic value.
For a piece of code you might care about many things: correctness, maintainability, efficiency, etc. I don't care if someone wrote bad (or good) code by hand or uses LLM, it is still bad (or good code). Someone has to take the decision if the code fits the requirements, LLM, or software developer, and this will not go away.
> but also a specific geographic origin. There's a good reason for this.
Yes, but the "good reason" is more probably the desire of people to have monopolies and not change. Same as with the paintings, if the cheese is 99% the same I don't care if it was made in a region or not. Of course the region is happy because means more revenue for them, but not sure it is good.
> To stop the machines from lying, they have to cite their sources properly.
I would be curious how can this be applied to a human? Should we also cite all the courses, articles that we have read on a topic when we write code?
> I would be curious how can this be applied to a human? Should we also cite all the courses, articles that we have read on a topic when we write code?
Yea this is the kind of BS and counter-productiveness that irrational radicals try to push the crowd towards.
The idea that one owns your observations of their work and can collect rent on it is absurd.
The value of a piece is definitely not completely tied to its physical attributes, but the story around it. The story is what creates its scarcity and generates the value.
It is similar for collectible items. If I had in my possession the original costume that Michael Jackson wore in thriller, I am sure I could sell it for thousands of dollars. I can also buy a copy for less than a hundred.
Same with luxury brands. Their price is not necessarily linked to their quality, but to the status they bring and the story they tell (i.e. wearing this transforms me into somebody important).
It can seem quite silly, but I think we are all doing it to some extent. While you said that a good forgery shouldn't affect one's opinion on the object (and I agree with you), what about AI-generated content? If I made a novel painting in the style of Van Gogh, you might find it beautiful. What if I told you I just prompted it and painted it? What if I just printed it? There are levels of involvement that we are all willing to accept differently.
Regarding art, what do you feel about museums? Why would you go see an original instead of simply looking at a jpg.
Even if you aren't in the group, there is clearly a group of people who appreciate seeing the original, the thing that modified our collective artistic trajectory.
Forgeries and master studies have a long history in art. Every classically trained worth their salt has a handful of forgeries under their belt. Remaking work that you enjoy helps you appreciate it further, understand the choices they made and get a better for feel how they wielded the medium. Though these forgeries are for learning and not intended to be pieces in their own right.
> Regarding art, what do you feel about museums? Why would you go see an original instead of simply looking at a jpg.
I go to a museum to see a curated collection with explanations in a place that prevents distractions (I can't open a new tab) and going with people that might be interested to talk about what they see and feel. It's as well a social and personal experience on top information gathering.
> there is clearly a group of people who appreciate seeing the original,
There are many people interested in many things, do you want to say that "because some people think it is important, it must be important"? There were many people with really weird and despicable ideas along history and while I am neutral to this one, they definitely don't convince me just by their numbers.
> simply looking at a jpg.
Technically a jpg would not work because is lossy compression. But a png at the correct resolution might do the trick for some things (paintings that you see from far), but not for others. Museum have multiple objects that would be hard to put in an image (statues, clothes, bones, tables, etc.). You definitely can't put https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comedian_(artwork) in a jpg - but the discussion surrounding it touches topics discussed here.
> An artist that paints something that I can't distinguish from a Van Gogh is a very skillful artist and the painting is very beautiful.
There are a lot such artists who can do that after having seen Van Gogh's paintings before. Only Van Gogh (as far as we know) did paint those without having seen anything like it before - in other words, he had a new idea.
So, if we apply to software, should we quote Dijkstra each time we use his graph algorithm?
Should we also say "if you can implement Dijkstra's algorithm" it's irrelevant because "you did not have the idea"?
It's great to credit people that have an idea first. I fail to see how using an idea is that "bad" or "not worthy", ideas should be spread and used, not locked by the first one that had them (except some small time period maybe).
Even the mechanical skill of painting gets a lot harder without an example to look at. Most people can get pretty good at painting from example within a year or two but it’s a big leap to simply paint from memory, much less create something original.
Hello, I am a single dev using an agent (Claude Code) on a solo project.
I have accepted that reading 100% of the generated code is not possible.
I am attempting to find methods to allow for clean code to be generated none the less.
I am using extremely strict DDD architecture. Yes it is totally overkill for a one man project.
Now i only have to be intimate with 2 parts of the code:
* the public facade of the modules, which also happens to be the place where authorization is checked.
* the orchestrators, where multiple modules are tied together.
If the inners of the module are a little sloppy (code duplication and al), it is not really an issue, as these do not have an effect at a distance with the rest of the code.
I have to be on the lookout though. It happens that the agent tries to break the boundaries between the modules, cheating its way with stuff like direct SQL queries.
Claude makes me mad:
even when I ask for small code snippets to be improved, it increasingly starts to comment "what I could improve" in the code I stead of generating the embarrassingly easy code with the improvement itself.
If I point it to that by something like "include that yourself", it does a decent job.
Enforce this with deterministic guardrails. Use strictest linting config you possibly can, and even have it write custom, domain specific linters of things that can't happen. Then you won't have to hand hold it that much
That's a problem with any self-improving tools, not just LLMs. Successful self-improvement leads to efficiency, which is just another name for laziness.
No, it's simply untrue. Players only object against AI art assets. And only when they're painfully obvious. No one cares about how the code is written.
If you actually read the words used in Steam AI survey you'll know Steam has completely caved in for AI-gen code as well. It's specifically worded like this:
> content such as artwork, sound, narrative, localization, etc.
No 'code' or 'programming.'
If game players are the most anti-AI group then it's crystal clear that LLM coding is inevitable.
> This stands in stark contrast to code, which generally doesn't suffer from re-use at all, or may even benefit from it, if it's infrastructure.
Yeah, exactly. And LLM help developers save time from writing the same thing that has be done by other developers for a thousand times. I don't know how one can spins this as a bad thing.
> Classic procedural generation is noteworthy here as a precedent, which gamers were already familiar with, because by and large it has failed to deliver.
Spore is well acclaimed. Minecraft is literally the most sold game ever. The fact one developer fumbled it doesn't make the idea of procedural generation bad. This is a perfect example of that a tool isn't inherently good or bad. It's up to the tool's wielder.
> That said, Steam's policy has been recently updated to exclude dev tools used for "efficiency gains", but which are not used to generate content presented to players.
I only quoted the first paragraph, but there is more.
Household name game studios have had custom AI art asset tooling for a long time that can create art quickly, using their specific style.
AI is a tool and as Steve Jobs said, you can hold it wrong. It's like plastic surgery, you only notice the bad ones and object to them. An expert might detect the better jobs, but the regular folk don't know and for the most part don't care unless someone else tells them to care.
And then they go around blaming EVERYTHING as AI.
"So you hated the TV Series Ugly Betty then?"
"What? that's not CGI!"
This video is 15 years old
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDjorAhcnbY
I can type up what I want much faster and be sure it's at least solving the right problem, even if it may have bugs.
There are also tools to generate boilerplate that work much much better than LLMs. And they're deterministic.
Most of what we do is programming is some small novel idea at high level and repeatable boilerplate at low level. A fair question is: why hasn’t the boilerplate been automated as libraries or other abstractions? LLMs are especially good at fuzzy abstracting repeatable code, and it’s simply not possible to get the same result from other manual methods.
I empathise because it is distressing to realise that most of value we provide is not in those lines of code but in that small innovation at the higher layer. No developer wants to hear that, they would like to think each lexicon is a creation from their soul.
Abstractions are the source of bloat. Without abstractions you can always reduce bloat, or you can reduce bloat in your glue, but you can't reduce glue.
It takes discipline to NOT create arbitrary function signatures and short-lived intermediate data structures or type definitions. This is the beginning of boilerplate.
So many advances in removing boilerplate are realizing your 5 function calls and 10 intermediate data structures or type definitions, essentially compute a thing that you can do with 0 function calls and 0 custom datatypes and less lines of code.
The abstraction hides how simple the thing you want is.
Problem is that all open source code looks like the bloat described above, so LLMs have no idea how to actually write code that is without boilerplate. The only place where I've seen it work is in shaders, which are usually written to avoid common pitfalls of abstraction.
LLMs are incapable of writing a big program in 1 function and 1 file, that does what you want. Splitting the program into functions or even multiple files, is a step you do after a lot of time, yet all open source looks nothing like that.
It's weird to look at something that recent and think how dated it reads today. I also wrote about the Turing test as some major milestone of AI development, when in fact the general response to programs passing the Turing test was to shrug and minimize it
Probably the original sin here is that we started calling them programming languages instead of just 'computer code'.
Also - most of your work is far more than mere novelty! There are intangibles like your intellectual labor and time.
There is also the cost reason, somebody trying to sell an abstraction will try to monetize it and this means not everyone will want/be able to use it (or it will take forever/be unfinished if it's open/free).
There's also the platform lockin/competition aspect...
FORTRAN ("formula translator") was one of the first programs ever written and it was supposed to make coding obsolete. Scientists will now be able to just type in formulas and the computer will just calculate the result, imagine that!
I also don't know what work you do, but I would not characterize the codebases I work in as "small bits of novelty" on boilerplate. Software engineering is always a holistic systems undertaking, where every subcomponent and the interactions between them have to be considered.
I still think LLMs as fancy autocomplete is the truth and not even a dig. Autocomplete is great. It works best when there’s one clear output desired (even if you don’t know exactly what it is yet). Nobody is surprised when you type “cal” and California comes up in an address form, why should we be surprised when you describe a program and the code is returned?
Knowledge has the same problem as cosmology, the part we can observe doesn’t seem to account for the vast majority of what we know us out there. Symbolic knowledge encompasses unfathomable multitudes and will eventually be solved by AI but the “dark matter” of knowledge that can’t easily be expressed in language or math is still out in the wild
Cue the smug Lisp weenies.
Maybe "Artisanal Coding" will be a thing in the future?
Like you can still make Karelian pies[0] anywhere, but unless you follow the exact recipe, you can't sell them as "Karelian pies". It's good for the heritage and good for the customers.
You can also make any cheeses and wines and whatever you like, it's just how you name them and market them that's regulated.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karelian_pasty
This is an absolute chef-kiss double-entendre.
Guilty until proven innocent will satisfy the author's LLM-specific point of contention, but it is hardly a good principle.
He is proposing to not make a judgement at all. If the AI company CLAIMS something they have to prove it. Like they do in science or something. Any claim is treated as such, a claim. The trick is to not even claim anything, let the users all on their own come to the conclusion that it's magic. And it's true that LLMs by design cannot cite sources. Thus they cannot by design tell you if they made something up with disregard to it making sense or working, if they just copy and pasted it, something that either works or is crap, or if they somehow created something new that is fantastic.
All we ever see are the success stories. The success after the n-th try and tweaking of the prompt and the process of handling your agents the right way. The hidden cost is out there, barely hidden.
This ambiguity is benefitting the AI companies and they are exploiting it to the maximum. Going even as far as illegally obtaining pirated intellectual property from an entity that is banned in many countries on one end of their utilization pipeline and selling it as the biggest thing ever at the other end. And yes, all the doomsday stories of AI taking over the world are part of the marketing hype.
Love it. Calling it "Copilot" in itself is a lie. Marketing speak to sell you an idea that doesn't exist. The idea is that you are still in control.
Someone might call LLMs that today, except they've stepped a bit up from steroids.
btw you can make git commits with AI as author and you as commiter. Which makes git blame easier
On a philosophical level I do not get the discussions about paintings. I love a painting for what it is not for being the first or the only one. An artist that paints something that I can't distinguish from a Van Gogh is a very skillful artist and the painting is very beautiful. Me labeling "authentic" it or not should not affect it's artistic value.
For a piece of code you might care about many things: correctness, maintainability, efficiency, etc. I don't care if someone wrote bad (or good) code by hand or uses LLM, it is still bad (or good code). Someone has to take the decision if the code fits the requirements, LLM, or software developer, and this will not go away.
> but also a specific geographic origin. There's a good reason for this.
Yes, but the "good reason" is more probably the desire of people to have monopolies and not change. Same as with the paintings, if the cheese is 99% the same I don't care if it was made in a region or not. Of course the region is happy because means more revenue for them, but not sure it is good.
> To stop the machines from lying, they have to cite their sources properly.
I would be curious how can this be applied to a human? Should we also cite all the courses, articles that we have read on a topic when we write code?
Yea this is the kind of BS and counter-productiveness that irrational radicals try to push the crowd towards.
The idea that one owns your observations of their work and can collect rent on it is absurd.
The value of a piece is definitely not completely tied to its physical attributes, but the story around it. The story is what creates its scarcity and generates the value.
It is similar for collectible items. If I had in my possession the original costume that Michael Jackson wore in thriller, I am sure I could sell it for thousands of dollars. I can also buy a copy for less than a hundred.
Same with luxury brands. Their price is not necessarily linked to their quality, but to the status they bring and the story they tell (i.e. wearing this transforms me into somebody important).
It can seem quite silly, but I think we are all doing it to some extent. While you said that a good forgery shouldn't affect one's opinion on the object (and I agree with you), what about AI-generated content? If I made a novel painting in the style of Van Gogh, you might find it beautiful. What if I told you I just prompted it and painted it? What if I just printed it? There are levels of involvement that we are all willing to accept differently.
Even if you aren't in the group, there is clearly a group of people who appreciate seeing the original, the thing that modified our collective artistic trajectory.
Forgeries and master studies have a long history in art. Every classically trained worth their salt has a handful of forgeries under their belt. Remaking work that you enjoy helps you appreciate it further, understand the choices they made and get a better for feel how they wielded the medium. Though these forgeries are for learning and not intended to be pieces in their own right.
I go to a museum to see a curated collection with explanations in a place that prevents distractions (I can't open a new tab) and going with people that might be interested to talk about what they see and feel. It's as well a social and personal experience on top information gathering.
> there is clearly a group of people who appreciate seeing the original,
There are many people interested in many things, do you want to say that "because some people think it is important, it must be important"? There were many people with really weird and despicable ideas along history and while I am neutral to this one, they definitely don't convince me just by their numbers.
> simply looking at a jpg.
Technically a jpg would not work because is lossy compression. But a png at the correct resolution might do the trick for some things (paintings that you see from far), but not for others. Museum have multiple objects that would be hard to put in an image (statues, clothes, bones, tables, etc.). You definitely can't put https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comedian_(artwork) in a jpg - but the discussion surrounding it touches topics discussed here.
There are a lot such artists who can do that after having seen Van Gogh's paintings before. Only Van Gogh (as far as we know) did paint those without having seen anything like it before - in other words, he had a new idea.
Should we also say "if you can implement Dijkstra's algorithm" it's irrelevant because "you did not have the idea"?
It's great to credit people that have an idea first. I fail to see how using an idea is that "bad" or "not worthy", ideas should be spread and used, not locked by the first one that had them (except some small time period maybe).
I have accepted that reading 100% of the generated code is not possible.
I am attempting to find methods to allow for clean code to be generated none the less.
I am using extremely strict DDD architecture. Yes it is totally overkill for a one man project.
Now i only have to be intimate with 2 parts of the code:
* the public facade of the modules, which also happens to be the place where authorization is checked.
* the orchestrators, where multiple modules are tied together.
If the inners of the module are a little sloppy (code duplication and al), it is not really an issue, as these do not have an effect at a distance with the rest of the code.
I have to be on the lookout though. It happens that the agent tries to break the boundaries between the modules, cheating its way with stuff like direct SQL queries.
Claude makes me mad: even when I ask for small code snippets to be improved, it increasingly starts to comment "what I could improve" in the code I stead of generating the embarrassingly easy code with the improvement itself.
If I point it to that by something like "include that yourself", it does a decent job.
That's so _L_azy.