That's because there's nothing "craftsman" about using AI to do stuff for you. Someone who uses AI to write their programs isn't the equivalent of a carpenter using a table saw, they are the equivalent of a carpenter who subcontracts the piece out to someone else. And we wouldn't show respect to the latter person either.
But you wouldn't call them a craftsperson because they didn't do any craft other than "be a manager". Reviewing work is not on the same plane as actually creating something.
Simply put most industries started moving away from craftsmanship starting in the late 1700s to the mid 1900s. Craftsmanship does make a few nice things but it doesn't scale. Mass production lead to most people actually having stuff and the general condition of humanity improving greatly.
Software did kind of get a cheat code here though, we can 'craft' software and then endlessly copy it without the restrictions of physical objects. With all that said, software is rarely crafted well anyway. HN has an air about it that software developers are the craftsman of their gilded age, but most software projects fail terribly and waste huge amounts of money.
Does Steve Jobs deserve any respect for building the iPhone then? What is this "actually creating"? I'm sure he wasn't the one to do any of the "actually creating" and yet, there's no doubt in my mind that he deserves credit for the iPhone existing and changing the world.
> Does Steve Jobs deserve any respect for building the iPhone then?
No. Because he didn’t build it. He didn’t even have the idea for it. He gets respect for telling a lot of people “no” and for saying “not this” and “not that,” for being an excellent editor, but he does NOT get any credit for building m the iPhone.
That was thousands of other people.
By the way, what does being an editor look like?
It looks a lot like telling an LLM, “no, not that. Not that either. Try it this way. Mmm, not quite. Here, let me show you a sketch. Try something like that. Yes, that’s it!!”
I'm no fan of "AI" but I think it could be argued that if we're sticking to the metaphor, the carpenter can pick up the phone and subcontract out work to the lowest bidder, but perhaps that "work" doesn't actually require high craftsmanship. Or we could make the comparison that developers building systems of parts need to know how they all fit together, not that they built each part themselves, i.e., the carpenter can buy precut lumber rather than having to cut it all out of a huge trunk themselves.
It's very telling when someone invokes this comparison..I see it fairly often. It implies there is this hirearchy of skill/talent between the "architect" and the "bricklayer" such that any architect could be a bricklayer but a bricklayer couldn't be an architect. The conceit is telling.
I'm not implying a hierarchy of value or status here, btw. And the point about difficulty is interesting too. I did manual labor and it was much harder than programming, as you might expect!
You can certainly outsource "up", in terms of skill. That's just how business works, and life... I called a plumber not so long ago! And almost everyone outsources their health...
Almost every bit of work I've hired people to do has been through an intermediary of some sort. Usually one with "contractor" or "engineer" as a title. They are the ones who can organize others, have connections, understand talent, plan and keep schedules, recognize quality, and can identify and troubleshoot problems. They may also be craftsmen, or have once been, but the work is not necessarily their craft. If you want anything project-scoped, you have a team, there is someone in a leadership role (even if informally), someone handling the money, etc. Craftsmanship may or may not happen within that framework, they are somewhat orthogonal concerns, and I don't see any reason to disrespect the people that make room for it to happen.
Of course you can also get useless intermediaries, which may be more akin to vibe coding. Not entirely without merit, but the human in the loop is providing questionable value. I think this is the exception rather than the norm.
a) Nothing about letting AI do grunt work for you is "not being a craftsman".
b) Things are subcontracted all the time. We don't usually disrespect people for that.
Nothing craftsman? The detail required to setup a complex image gen pipeline to produce something the has the consistent style, composition, placement, etc, and quite a bit more-- for things that will go into production and need a repeatable pipeline-- it's huge. Take every bit as much creative vision.
Taking just images, consider AI merely a different image capture mechanism, like the camera is vs. painting. (You could copy.paste many critiques about this sort of ai and just replace it with "camera") Sure it's more accessible to a non professional, in AI's case much more so than cameras wear to years of learning painting. But there's a world of difference between what most people do in a prompt online and how professionals integrating it into their workflow are doing. Are such things "art"? That's not a productive question, mostly, but there's this: when it occurs, it has every bit as much intention, purpose and from a human behind it as that which people complain is lacking, but are referring to the one-shot prompt process in their mind when they do.
