I think Rich's comment reply here explains the post:
> Commenter: Well, this was a twitter-like controversial clickbait but I will say it anyway. LLM is a tool. To be more specific, it's a lossy knowledge base with a human language for querying and built-in summarization.
> Rich Hickey: Agreed. I'm talking about its embodiment in conversational systems purporting to be 'tools' for doing homework, research, coding, writing etc.
With that framing in mind, the article makes a lot of sense. AI agents are not tools for coding, they automate coding, which means you lose control, learning, predictability, etc.
In and of itself, an AI agent is a tool, can be used for things, like say making software, but if thinking of it as a tool for coding, that appears wrong, as using one changes the modality of the task, you are not coding using a tool, the coding is no longer done by you and has been automated.
As he also says, reading an AI summary of a paper is a different modality from using it to read the entirety of a paper, therefore it is not a tool for reading the way a Kindle, glasses, reader-mode are. And similar to with coding, you've lost things from automating the reading, that reading just a summary does not provide.
The part about "It's just a tool." that always bugged me is exactly this.
A Hammer is a tool ... a carpentry sub-contractor is not.
> a carpentry sub-contractor is not.
You sound like you're anthropomorphizing it. A hammer is a tool, yes, but a complex conveyor belt of "smart" hammers is still a tool. It's not a "sub-contractor" - you can't blame the belt when it starts hammering things the wrong way; you can't sue it; you can't reason with it; you can't punish it. You're still responsible for the outcome, thus it is a tool, because you're the one wielding it, using and operating it. But then you have to draw the line between a "tool" and "automation", that's what Rich is doing here. But that line is also, soooo debatable. My own usage of my harness changes from task to task, multiple times a day. Sometimes it's pure automation, sometimes it is absolutely a tool.
> A Hammer is a tool ... a carpentry sub-contractor is not.
If human - the sub-contractor isn't a tool, if robot - it is. Similar to how a human digging trenches isn't a tool but a tractor-trencher is, even if autonomous.
You’ve made the same mistake that this thread is talking about.
It’s not about whether the abstraction is human or not, it’s the level of abstraction you can operate at. Using hand tools vs power tools as a bad analogy: you can use either and still become a good carpenter. If you have someone build your cabinets for you that’s a totally different level of abstraction and you don’t actually have any carpentry skills or knowledge.
> You’ve made the same mistake that this thread is talking about.
I'm not making a mistake, you're confusing abstract "abstractions" with concrete humans. Some humans aren't much into abstractions but that doesn't make them less human. LLMs manipulate human-created abstractions, similar to other software, but that doesn't make them human at all.
> Using hand tools vs power tools as a bad analogy
You're confused about my analogy too, here's what I said: "a human digging trenches isn't a tool but a tractor-trencher is, even if autonomous". Robotic, autonomous tractor-trenchers do manipulate abstractions and dig trenches but that doesn't make them human.
You're too hung up on the social agreement of what a tool is. Yes, if I move into the sun to warm up, the sun is a tool. That's proper dictionary "tool definition". I believe Rich's point is, if you see it that way, then think AI is just a tool, you're missing on the world of differences between things.
So he purposely narrows the definition of a tool, and exclude autonomous things from it. He also excludes passive things like the drive-through window, which isn't actively being manipulated by anyone, but just serves as a part of allowing you to get food through the wall while remaining in your car. Yes, dictionary definition would say a drive-through window is a tool as well, but saying that is not very useful to reason about how a drive-through window and a hammer actually relate or differ.
If you start to instead think of autonomous things as automation, and things that are more extension of the human expression or movement as tools. You can start to better understand those things and that using one over the other changes your experience and what you gain or lose in the process even if your use of them results in a similar outcome.
The argument rests on defining a tool as a tool only if it's a tool for a specific task.
For example, if the task is hammering, then a hammer is a tool. A clamp is not a tool because it's not a tool for hammering. But clearly they're both tools for joining two things.
Sure, AI isn't a tool for reading the way a Kindle is. Sure, AI writing code isn't a tool for coding.
But you can use AI like a dictionary to aid normal reading. You can use AI like Stack Exchange to aid coding by hand.
AI is a very multi-purpose tool.
If you're using it to code for you, then sure it's not being used as a coding tool. But it definitely can be.
And if a game designer can now make games with it without contracting programmers, then it's a game-making tool.
> And similar to with coding, you've lost things from automating the reading, that reading just a summary does not provide.
I actually find this a very interesting line of discussion, because in many ways it mirrors the transition from hand tools to power tools.
Ex - you're often trading the finesse and control of a hand tool for the speed of a power tool.
The way you process and deal with problems shifts, because certain things become much harder, and certain things become much easier.
I don't think the power tools analogy really works. Using power tools doesn't make you less skilled at carpentry, it just makes you less skilled at using hand tools specifically. If you then need to use hand tools later, you need to learn the hand tool skills but the carpentry skills are still there, and that's the more technical skill that takes longer to learn. In this sense the power tool analogy is more like using an IDE vs just a text editor.
Using AI to code is more like using a laser cutter for carpentry. You get the large pieces out which you then glue together, but if you needed to make those same pieces using either power tools OR hand tools you'd have a much harder time learning how to do it.
So functionally, this take is mostly incorrect.
You usually use entirely different techniques for hand vs power tool.
The way you'd do the work, the methods of joinery you'd choose, the style and choice of cuts, even the preferred size of boards - all completely different.
Learning hand tools is an entirely separate skill set. Down to the planning stage.
It's not merely doing power tools more slowly. And trying to use power tools like they're merely "faster" hand tools also doesn't work. You waste a ton of time because it's just a different operation.
Ya, and in a comment he mentions he sees a spectrum from tool to automation.
I think a power tool would exist somewhere in the middle of that spectrum, closer to automation than a hand tool, but further away than a CNC router.
To be honest, I think he could have tried to find a better word for the left side of the spectrum than tool. Because in dictionary sense, all these things are tools. Anything a human uses for some purpose is a tool. I think he's trying to simply say, yes all these can be used to do things, AI can be used to make software, so can your IDE, but please think through the difference in how the experience and the process of making software differs vastly if using an IDE for it versus using an autonomous AI agent. And if you don't think it changes anything, well that might be at your own peril.
it’s an interface. which is arguably a type of tool.
“coding” is (now quite obviously) not the only way to create code. this was always true. you could create code by stitching snippets together from stackoverflow, or somewhere else, even your own existing works. or you could write it from scratch.
the whole “not a tool” argument just comes off as not wanting to view using it as the same amount of effort as using something else.
> What you are doing while using automation, instead of learning real-world truths, is attempting to divine the details du jour of some automaton.
That assertion all but admits it.