We should be better than genAI. For me, with things like coding and writing, I think I'm better than it. For painting? It wins over me. But I'd never in a million years claim creation of a painting I prompted, even if I went and modified it after. Same with code or writing, for that matter.
For the record, I never use AI in writing. First, it's no fun, and that's really reason enough. It'd be like sending a bot to watch a movie for me. Second, I'm better than it is, and it would just be an exercise in frustration micromanaging its every word. I might as well just type what I want it to say.
And third, most importantly, who would read anything I wrote if they could just generate it themselves? The goal is to be better.
And third, most importantly, who would read anything I wrote if they could just generate it themselves?
This should be embarrassingly obvious to everyone, but allegedly there are hoards of vibecoders and other slop producers to whom it never occurs (if it's not astroturfers pretending to be that). If prompt slinging is your only expertise, you already are redundant.
Meh. I‘d be happy if my AI built my program just the way that I want it, but it turns out to be a lot of work go get it to do that (Deepseek, Claude might be a bit less involved).
I still have to make a bunch of decisions based on its research, so it still turns out to be hours of work that can go into it.
Granted, I can probably optimize some things by encoding my style preferences. But so far it has been a lot more involved than „make me an app, make no mistakes“.
That‘s why I‘d call it in a large part my work. It‘s my vision, in the same way an architect that has never personally laid a brick can call a building „their work“.
On the other hand, you might be better than AI if given maximal time, attention, and energy.
But the question is how often are you better at all the tasks where you don’t have maximal time, attention, and energy - and it would make no sense to invest it.
Comments
We should be better than genAI. For me, with things like coding and writing, I think I'm better than it. For painting? It wins over me. But I'd never in a million years claim creation of a painting I prompted, even if I went and modified it after. Same with code or writing, for that matter.
For the record, I never use AI in writing. First, it's no fun, and that's really reason enough. It'd be like sending a bot to watch a movie for me. Second, I'm better than it is, and it would just be an exercise in frustration micromanaging its every word. I might as well just type what I want it to say.
And third, most importantly, who would read anything I wrote if they could just generate it themselves? The goal is to be better.
This should be embarrassingly obvious to everyone, but allegedly there are hoards of vibecoders and other slop producers to whom it never occurs (if it's not astroturfers pretending to be that). If prompt slinging is your only expertise, you already are redundant.
Meh. I‘d be happy if my AI built my program just the way that I want it, but it turns out to be a lot of work go get it to do that (Deepseek, Claude might be a bit less involved).
I still have to make a bunch of decisions based on its research, so it still turns out to be hours of work that can go into it.
Granted, I can probably optimize some things by encoding my style preferences. But so far it has been a lot more involved than „make me an app, make no mistakes“.
That‘s why I‘d call it in a large part my work. It‘s my vision, in the same way an architect that has never personally laid a brick can call a building „their work“.
On the other hand, you might be better than AI if given maximal time, attention, and energy.
But the question is how often are you better at all the tasks where you don’t have maximal time, attention, and energy - and it would make no sense to invest it.