> one wrote code while the other is used by meatbags to write code.
replyOne is not a "meatbag" while the other is not a "meatbag". And no, outputting something on stdout that happens to function as code is not "writing" it in the sense that we actually care about here. That's conflating the metaphor we use in describing program behaviour with the actual "meatbag" activity.
> why is this example always marched out like it means something?
Because it obviously does.
Almost all ways of creating programs are effectively just using tools to produce code. Compiling, transpiling, interpreting byte code, etc.
replyagain, that's not what we are talking about here. we have humans writing code using an IDE. we have LLMs generating code that is placed in the IDE. why are people obtuse to this? why are bots obtuse to this?
replyWe have humans writing code using prompts. We have interpreters generating byte code that is placed in the JVM. I don’t think it’s obtuse to look at it this way.
replyClaude didn't "write" anything until a meatbag told it to.
replyMy employer didn't write anything until they told me to.
reply