Honesty question, and leaving aside implications about what's possible and all of that, what was particular positive about the experience?

You didn't do anything, just asked a different entity to do it for you. And nothing noble or original, just a copy of existing games. I see no difference between this and getting a $500 coupon to use at Fiverrr and ask a freelance engineer to do the same while you chat with them.

Is there anything inherently noble about programming if not to solve a real world problem?

If they were doing it for an exam where their skills were being evaluated, that’s one thing. But if they were doing it as a means to an end, does it matter if they found a more efficient way to do it?

Idk about "noble" specifically, but fulfilling and meaningful yes. "Solving" a real world problem isnt the only reason I code. It might be why im paid for it, but I enjoy coding and get fulfillment from it.

I recently interviewed a very pro-ai dev who's last position listed 'architect' and was stunned at how limited their knowledge seemingly was. I didnt have a coding question prepared because i assumed we could have a higher level 'architecture'-oriented chat but they had seemingly nothing to contribute... Thankfully another interviewer had a simple coding challenge prepared, which filtered the candidate out.

Long story short, i wonder if the folks who.genuinely enjoy coding are going to be the only remaining skilled technologists after the rest make themselves obsolete by overly depending on these tools, regardless of how good they supposedly are.

But copying an existing game is not solving a real world problem. You may do it to see if "I can make it", during a learning process, or as a challenge. But when you ask something/someone else to do it for you, what's the purpose?

Why are you trying to shit on the guy and put him down? What's wrong with just having fun and testing it's capabilities? So what if there's a million TD games out there? They wanted to see if it's possible and they enjoyed the experience. Or maybe someone wants to make a personalized version for someone they love, or a million other things.

And what's it matter if someone else made it? Do you make your own bread or milk your own cows? Do you build your own cars?

Like who gives a shit, when the most important thing for 95% of people is, "Can i use this? Can I operate it? What can this do for me? How does this make life easier/better/fun?".

It's also interesting as it shows the reality we're heading towards with hyper-personalized media. Love it or hate it, it's coming.

I asked him because I couldn't see the fun of it. And your examples about milk and car are exactly what I am saying. I don't create them...

About your last example, it's like asking a AI to write Harry Potter but where the character has a different name and be blown away for what I did in a weekend!

Exactly. It's also exciting to see things at the frontier, just because they're new. I wasn't planning to release the game, just get something working for myself. By the way, this was July 2024 shortly after Anthropic introduced Claude Artifacts.

I'm not asking for an award. lol. I'm not sure exactly what you're after here, with asking what was particularly positive.

It's a personal attempt to see how much I can do with an automaton. I could pay someone to do my taxes or file them myself (I'm in the US). There is much more room for frustration but also lots of benefits to the latter.

In particular, with Claude Artifacts, I had a chance to see an amazing innovation. Have you ever wanted to see something new just because it's new? It changes you, which of course is one of the purposes of exploring novelties. By the way, this was my experience in July 2024.

I was talking to some colleagues about this recently, and I think the reason non-coders and amateur coders seem to be so much more impressed by the current state of AI code gen is that they don't fully understand what actually goes into the average software project.

Setting up a simple game on your local machine really isn't that hard. For example, you can probably take an open-source project and with some minor alterations have something working pretty quickly.

But most software development doesn't work like this. You are typically given very explicit requirements and when you're working for a corporate with real customers you have high quality standards that need to be met. Often this is going to require a lot of bespoke code and high-level solutionising which you're not going to get out of some open source project (at least not without significant changes).

Similarly, productionising products requires a lot of work and consideration which spinning something up locally doesn't. You need to think about security, data persistence, hosting, deployment, development environments, documentation, etc, etc, etc...

I think this partly explains why people have such widely different opinions on these tools at the moment. I acknowledge they write pretty good code, but for me they're almost useless in 90% of the things I do and think about as a software engineer.

I suspect, that just like real developers, that Claude is best at "greenfield" projects, but not so good at making changes to existing code generated by other developers or AIs.