If I asked an AI to write a text on the topic “Programming is art”, that thought process wouldn’t happen. I wouldn’t experience the same emotions that come with writing it myself. For me, writing is art that I pursue regardless of money. I think people who enjoy writing code feel the same way.

Huh. The turnaround given the top comment here is interesting.

Where this falls flat for me is, opportunities to write code that people will be willing to experience directly are rare. Much of it doesn't even allow them to do so, or at least programmatically crams it all together in an unintelligible mess (ie. the javascript rendering a typical website). How can something be art if the audience is kept away from it? But even when it's like that, people will still do it without a financial motive. You can still have a result in mind and go through the process of finding the shortest path to it, and that can still be art, even if some of the materials aren't. Even if it's not art, it's exercising power, it's desirable regardless of money.

That said, I do think there is something really special about code as writing, where it is written to be read and understood and making full use of it necessarily entails doing so. Shared awareness of abstract structures is really underrated.

the Devil whispered behind the leaves, "It's pretty, but is it Art?"

The Conundrum Of The Workshops by Rudyard Kipling

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.