> It doesn't bother me that Claude could one-shot it, because that's not the point.
What do you say to someone that is bothered though? I don't know why it effects my enjoyment so, but it does.
What do you say to someone that is bothered though? I don't know why it effects my enjoyment so, but it does.
Now, I don't mean art as in pictures. Rather, I mean science is objectively correct or incorrect, while art is not. So things like does your code work is a science, and things like your design is an art. In regards to science, AI will do the same things as you, because there's only one "truth". However, in regards to art, it would never do the same things that you do.
One of my favorite games is Tunic. If the developer had tried to one-shot Tunic with an AI, it wouldn't have been Tunic. Maybe it would have been a good game, maybe it would have had a lot of similar ideas. But they wouldn't have been the exact same ideas. Tunic itself would have been forever lost.
So what am I trying to say? Find parts of programming where the path not taken matters. Then it doesn't matter if Claude could one-shot it, because it's one shot will be different than what you do.
Unfortunately, this doesn't fix all of programming. The more science-y parts of programming such as reverse engineering do get affected by AI. But to give you an idea, I'm building a programming language. I toyed with the idea of using LLMs. When I decided not to, I had a problem - my language had become too complex to do it without AI. So I sat down and scrapped the entire thing. Now I have a new programming language that's even better. If I had one shot it with Claude, I wouldn't have had this language. So in the end, doing it by hand mattered.