It's really only safe to assume clay=code in the context that the author provided. Even then, it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
It's easy to assume that because this person is a coder that they are also careful with logic, but it doesn't seem to be the case.
My take: clay coders are on the way out (or shape shifting) as AI becomes capable of writing code that can be thought of as clay. I hope to see you on the other side where we'll talk about systems that outpace the analogy.
Imagine calling a circle a sphere. But a circle is 2D projection of a sphere.
I suppose we are comfortable calling a 3D projection of a hypercube by its 4D name because there really is no 4D context which we can readily slip into. That and no shorter name than "3D projection of a hypercube".
I'm not a mathematician and I'm certainly guilty of uncareful thinking. And I'm not certain that careful thinking and speech is always necessary.
Maybe I just missed the whole point of this article. I have a math fetish and IRL hobbies with my wife, now listen to what I have to say about what code and AI are up to?
Code is clay. Code is foam. Code is water. Code is paper. Code is wood.
Why can't it just be code? Is it that hard to conceptualize? Is the point of the article to rage-bait nerds by making a loose comparison that might not hold up under scrutiny?
Just grumbling in the hopes that someone else will grumble and I won't feel like the only one. My apologies to those who really needed to read this article and feel insulted by my take.
That's a fair response. I think I was trying to make a point which may be a bit more subtle than my questions suggest when taken at face value.
I'll attempt to explain.
From reading the article, I presume that at some point, all the people who think of code as clay will migrate out of this profession and set up shop in some mall somewhere helping married people renew their ties by making code artifacts by hand. As the article suggests, code (for them) will go the way that clay has went.
Also per the article, AI will be making some other portion of the low-hanging fruit code which business people can't justify hiring humans for.
And then perhaps there will be me and other people like me getting paid to work on things which require an understanding that code is quite unlike any medium humanity has seen before.
For the later group, code is not for everyone, it's beyond what AI can produce by itself, it's not a fetish, it's not cool, it's not fun, and it's one of the only ways to do the things we can do with it.
I sometimes think I'm addressing that later group of people when I type into this box, but maybe that's a bit naive of me.
It could have been safer for me to state that I find it unwise to make these analogies without being careful about the dangers in doing so.
about Software as knowledge medium, and effects thereof
some excerpts:
... software is not a product but a medium for storing knowledge, and software development is not a product-producing activity, it is a knowledge-acquiring activity.
... the real job is not writing the code, or even building the system - it is acquiring the necessary knowledge to build the system... Code is simply a by-product of this activity. The problem arises when we think the code, rather than the knowledge in the code, is the product.
... When we use models and mindsets that are rigid and deterministic to manage an activity that is fluid and variable, it is not surprising that people get disappointed.
"... for the most part, (software) engineers do not _know_ how to build the systems they are trying to build; it's their job to _find_ out how to do it."
i.e. programmers must be able to learn (and teach) - should learn that and/or be taught to it. All else are tools supporting that activity.
The article did not do it for you. Do not apologize and thanks for sharing why he did not do it for you. It did not do it for me neither, for other reasons (I don't care that much about code, as a non-coder)
I like where you are going with this and love that you dropped Zen here. Permit me to riff/add color, please.
Zen tries to draw a distinction between mental models with an object/subject separation and alternatives.
There are sane and insane reasons why we might adopt one or the other model.
An object/subject thinker might obsess over status symbols, but also the frame itself can lead to discomfort over using the "wrong" part.
Witness something like this in buy/build discussions where cargo-cult thinking plays a bigger part than rational thought. This probably goes well beyond object/subject thinking.
The status symbol thing can be more than posturing for prosperity. Some people get their identity tangled up in brand separate from social concerns.
I talk with LLM's about this sort of thing quite a bit more than I talk with humans. I get irritated when LLM refuses to allow for shorthand language. I hope I don't come across like that.
I agree with what I read as the sentiment from your last line, there's something that can be unsettling about objects carrying more than their intrinsic value.
>Someone please tell me we are not living in a time where the kids are pro-regulation
Hard to say. I'm not really "old" nor "young" per se. I'm a late millenial so I probably have pieces of both millenial and Gen Z in my experience. I'd love to know how this makeup really is at large, but from my observation:
>When I was younger, the youth were anti-establishment - that was cool and rebellious.
The "Gen Z" side me me spent its life seeing my parents (late Gen X) struggle through the results of '08 where we didn't regulate banks enough, and under a ruling that basically deregulated election spending. Then I graduate into a term of a president wanted to deregulate everything and am entering part 2 of such.
The "millenial" side of me just barely escaped the explosive costs of rent and college, but still felt the beginning of that impact. And got to experience almost a decade of decent work before seeing the job market completely turn on America. Because we spent decades de-regulating collective bargaining.
So I would not be surprised if Gen Z proper does want more regulation to reel in those who exploited deregulation. But that "cool and rebellious" mentality is still there given last year. It seems they already learned the results of that rebellion, though.
> Now we need the machine to do our raging for us?
Pretty much. When minimum wage can't even cover rent, you get less time to rage yourself, outside of the ballot box.
I'm not arguing that pro-regulation is a bad stance just noting that my image of youth is wounded by thinking that the new youth are hands down in favor of it in general.
This is a silly and sad sentiment. Part of me just wants to think that some among us are crazy or naive enough to tend towards resistance. I don't blame anyone for not being so.
If central planning didn't work, why does every corporation under the sun use it internally? Why don't they just let everyone do what they want, and then sue eachother when it doesn't result in great outcomes?
Central planning does work at small scales. Everyone "centrally plans" their own life. Can you imagine doing it any other way?
The issue is that as the context expands, we lose the ability to make accurate predictions. To some extent we can't even predict our own lives although we try our best. When you expand that to the size of a corporation it's mostly just guessing. Corporations fail all of the time. When we expand that to a society, we are just guessing for everything but the most simple of predictions.
Clarify that, please? Maybe you mean "most corporations are short-lived due to excess central planning", or then again "most corporations are full of crusty old dudes who love the tradition of central planning", or ..?
I may believe both of those things, but no that's not actually what I meant. I simply meant look at the stats for how long corporations actually live. Are we sure that's how we want to structure our government?
Without comparing the management styles of different corporations it's difficult to say if it's related or not. For example, it's possible that long-lived corporations are run in a more laissez-faire style compared to ones that fail.
Interestingly, one marker for longevity is distributed ownership, aka profit share or co-op structures, or family run businesses. Co-ops specifically have much longer longevity than traditional corporations.
Look at the history of art itself to find several movements where artists make the point that difficulty in production is not the key feature of art. You might even find proof that human connection and humanity are not the key features. In fact, it's pretty hard to nail down an objective definition of art, but we can say what it doesn't have to be.
Gold doesn't share this nebulous sort of definition. Same with diamonds, what's their price now that we have figured out the "alchemy" for those?
What is it about these sorts of questions that escape those that write articles like these? Better yet, if the authors did ask these sorts of questions, could they write at all? Put another way, must there be a lack of depth in order for these sorts of ideas to be properly viral?
Maybe my feed just sucks. Someone please tell me where I can read what I describe. Thanks in advance.
I think gold was mentioned to give the nod to alchemy.
Diamonds are an interesting example. My understanding is that synthetic diamonds are largely used in industrial process (esp. abrasives). Synthetic diamonds in jewelry are cheaper alternatives, but jewelers can still sell natural diamonds for a premium. I think jewelry diamond prices are down in recent years, but not a crash. I think the market largely split.
The value of diamond jewelry feels quite nebulous to me. I remember looking at diamonds when picking an engagement ring and the jeweler had me look through the loope to examine microscopic imperfections, trying to upsell me on a different stone. Realizing the absurdity of using a microscope to assess jewelery which would otherwise only ever be seen by naked eye, the illusion of value broke and I purchased none.
The resale value of any diamond jewellery should tell all about real value of it. Unless it is actually rare and special piece my understanding is that value drops massively moment the payment clears.
Compare this to gold, silver etc. which do have labour, but still difference is mostly that and some buy/sell margin.
Artificial means of creating gold has not made it less scarce. Diamonds on the other hand should be less expensive, its value is based on proving your love to someone. Diamond resale value sucks. Diamond hasn't changed at all in the process.
It's easy to assume that because this person is a coder that they are also careful with logic, but it doesn't seem to be the case.
My take: clay coders are on the way out (or shape shifting) as AI becomes capable of writing code that can be thought of as clay. I hope to see you on the other side where we'll talk about systems that outpace the analogy.