Regarding the last paragraph:
If you’re thinking without writing, you only think you’re thinking. -Leslie Lamport
Regarding the rest:
It seems like he’s really only arguing that some programming is art. I’d argue that nearly all programming is art. And that all art is political. Therefore, nearly all programming is a political act.
I think that framing does a better job of explaining why some devs are not merely indifferent to AI coding but view it as a threat to the future of computing. But the author seems to be pro-AI, so I don’t think he can really put himself in that headspace.
Edit:
I was just reflecting on how exactly programming is an art form, and I related it back to the way I usually explain how games are art.
In a game, unlike in a book or a movie, you don’t just witness what’s “supposed to happen” — you can personally interject and ask “what if this happened instead?” By offering you the ability to actively inspect the game’s world from any angle you choose, it can create a deeper sense of the shape of the elements and themes of the game.
Code is similar. Any non-trivial chunk of code invites dozens of “what if?” questions, and the way the author chooses to handle each of those scenarios expresses some kind of philosophy about how the world should be. (Not just what the code currently does, but how it encourages or discourages certain kinds of edits.) These scenarios often have mutually-exclusive options, so it’s not possible to do the “proper” thing in all conditions. Trade-offs are inevitable, and so the code becomes a window to the values of the coder.
I think that part right there is why there’s such a gap between open source sentiments toward AI and enterprise adoption of AI. For FOSS code, the esoteric behavior of the edge cases of a subsystem’s subsystem is not a chore but a moral test.
In a megacorp though? The answer the corp wants is “whatever everyone else does”, or “whatever maximizes revenue”, or “whatever minimizes liability”. You kinda know the morality of the biz before you even consider the specific question. It’s not surprising, it’s not interesting, and delegating to a chatbot whose morals run on autotune doesn’t change much.
It is still art, and it is still political… but it’s Walmart home decor aisle art, and the politics of a Coke ad.
I won’t begrudge anyone their definition of art, because it’s an extremely slippery concept.
But I do think it’s worth pointing out that there are clearly at least two rather different notions of art: one as a product with value that rich people like to buy and trade, and one as a behavior that all human beings perform. I don’t think the latter category has any inherent “elevation” to it, the way the former does.
And also that having a utilitarian specific practical purpose doesn’t automatically prohibit it from being art, in most popular conceptions of the term. Some of the earliest artifacts that are widely considered art were primarily utilitarian: cups, bowls, and other tools.
Also, a good excuse to share this excellent piece: Tomatoes, or How Not To Define “Art”