While I do agree with the premise of the article, if find this way of thinking applicable for writing code as well. Your code is meant to not only be read by machines, but also other fellow humans. Writing code requires substantial amount of thinking as well. Shouldn't we write code without AI as well?

> Writing code requires substantial amount of thinking as well. Shouldn't we write code without AI as well?

You absolutely should. Using an LLM to write your code for you is not a good idea. It produces bad code, and it also robs you of understanding which will be valuable down the line.

Okay but I’ve spent 8 years implementing bad code so far. I’ve got a lot of understanding but only half the code is done. Down the line I’ll be dead. Why not implement it now with AI?

Moreover is writing code the only way to understand it?

If the point of the code is to be read, maybe.

I don't write code for my colleague's pleasure, I do it to solve a problem as fast and efficiently as possible.

I write code to be read by just one guy.

He’s five years older, a bit more tired than me, more going on in his life. Easily annoyed by bad code.

Weirdly enough he has exactly the same name and birthday as me.

Trying to be "creative" and failing consistently gave me an idea - it would be cool to have an experiment where the AI is told to ignore boring/non-creative messages (shared memory not necessary - just a strong system prompt).

Then we can have a leaderboard of humans that could manage to have a longest conversation with AI. Leaderboard would also link to the most "creative" conversations.

Kind of model jailbreaking, but with less negative vibes.

Some of the jailbreaking attempts I've seen today have been wild. Static has handled them better than I would've ever guessed.