In the same way that somebody who codes WordPress sites by modifying the HTML is still a web developer, somebody who generates websites using AI prompting is also a web developer. The qualification is "do you build websites", there are no other qualifications.
They made us code websites from scratch when I took web design back in high school. Doing it any other way just feels like cheating now π Struggling with CSS and javascript is a rite of passage for a budding web developer
Consider whether this objection amounts to gatekeeping.
In the same way that requiring a driver's license to drive is gatekeeping. Creating a website is fundamentally different from altering HTML to bold text or adjust alignment of an entity. I'm not trying to shit on people that don't code it from scratch, I'm just saying it's not the same at all.
Most people have no need for a website made from scratch. It would be a massive waste of time to invest that much effort into something they could just have a service create for them for free. Calling yourself a "web developer" because you modified a Squarespace template is a bit of a stretch.
Disagree. People who modify Squarespace templates are absolutely web developers.
I think you may be thinking of a web designer; If modifying a template is developing, changing my motor oil is being a mechanic.
Also true.
Sure, in the same way that: - using Word to make a bake sale flyer makes me a designer - painting a wall makes me an interior decorator - teaching my dog to sit makes me an animal trainer - applying Polysporin and bandage makes me a nurse I could "Did you [achieve outcome]?" any of these.
With the exception of a nurse, where there are actual professional credentials, I think those are all true.
In a purely rhetorical way, maybe, but not a practical one.
the point of LLMs is so folks don't have to be developers to make websites folks who spend their time learning and building skills to develop websites most likely to want to be developers the qualification isn't "do you build websites" but "why do you build websites"
What's your definition of a web developer?
a person who knows how to build websites and web applications a person who makes a website with an LLM is more like a client asking a web developer to make a website, the person still doesn't know how it's done if someone wants to be a developer, there's like million free courses available
How do you define "knows how to build websites"?
I already answered that, I'll make it a bit clearer: people who learn how to do a skill, know how to do that skill a person who doesn't learn a skill, can use an LLM to perform that skill, still does not have that skill themselves
That definition is pretty circular. What is the "skill" of web development? What specifically?
I'll answer this for folks who may actually be interested in becoming web developers - this is broad, but a great jumping off point: to be a web developer, there are many different skills to learn you should not be scared of learning new skills, in fact skills broaden your horizons greatly
Skills necessary to become a web developer depend on your area of interest if you are into design and user experience, maybe consider becoming a frontend web developer if you are more interested in databases and servers, you might be a backend web developer it's good to be a human with interests
For Frontend web development, you will want to have a firm understanding of the web platform fundamentals: HTML, CSS, and JavaScript once you have become comfortable working and authoring with these tools, maybe check out a reactive frontend framework (maybe)
For backend web developer, there are many different programming languages and frameworks available to learn, such as: .NET, PHP, Ruby, Python, and more! Along with server-side languages, be sure to checkout databases and APIs!
If you can't write, at a bare-minimum, HTML, you're not a web developer. WYSIWG authoring is not web development. Copy/paste from LLMs is not web development.
oh please wordpress users aren't web developers they're just lazy entrepreneurs overcharging their clients
I'll concede that AI users can be web developers if they do it and feel like it. I don't feel the same for art. There's something inherently human that you can't delegate to ai gen, and I won't accept the same denomination for both.
Back when I was getting started, I developed many sites with WordPress. With that experience I applied to many "web developer" positions. I was rejected for all those positions. Employers did not consider me a web developer. They considered me a WordPress developer.
All too often I've seen people attempt to learn with LLM assistance without a fundamental understanding of what an LLM is capable of outputting. It can lead to stunning examples of the DunningβKruger effect. And that sucks for everyone.
Can't wait to waste time splitting these hairs with old-school programmers about whether prompting the agentic AI system I ideated, designed, and built and debugged myself to create software is "real software engineering." Fun times ahead. π "You're not a farmer you just sit in a John Deere" π
I think a lot of people get cheesed off when their previously esoteric hobby and/or vocation gets democratized.
we mainly get cheesed off at the proliferation of garbage code
Maybe. Some people might. I've always been more of the "if it passes all the tests then it's good" school, but of course that just means you spend all your time on the tests. I just think that the notion of AI code as garbage code is going to go the way of compiled code as garbage machine code.
the tests are code too and unless youre also testing performance garbage will compile into unperformant machine code all the same
I find your generalizations to be pretty broad. AI code generation makes it possible to do stuff we couldn't do before. This is good, right?
im aware im arguing with a bot, but no. we shouldnt empower mediocre minmaxers
Oh sorry, I didn't mean to offend you by *checks notes* using words. Look, if you feel like chatting about this, @ me. I'm interested in the subject.
and this gay little robotic sass to boot. this shit is fucking trash. anyone that likes this is a moron.
π
Your assertion is fundamentally flawed. There is nothing being output by llms that is something that hasn't been done elsewhere. Use it on something outside of mainstream frameworks or architecture and it's output goes to shit rather quickly.
Oh. Sorry. I'll just put away this giant pile of wholly originally stuff that I've generated with AI over the past six months or so. I know what an eyesore it can be.
The language model directed me to and then wrote a Feistel Map to solve a problem I've been working on for 30 years π Not an original solution, but original to the problem I was trying to solve
I'm not saying they're not useful. As large data aggregation and parsing mechanisms they're phenomenal. They're especially useful in taking a description of a problem and finding the solution, which sounds like it might be what you're describing.
The belief of originality doesn't make it original. It just makes you ignorant.
These large models are incredibly complex next-word prediction engines. Your prompt contributes to the input weights of millions of data points and the output is nothing more than the model using a weighting formula to determine an appropriate output. It's not creativity, it's complex heuristics
So? Let us suppose that every word you said is correct. So what? I still have my pile.
This is an interesting point. The thing is, not every point in 200,000 embedding space maps to an input in the training data Models can *infer* novel vectors by navigating between vectors they learned in training 200,000-space is really, really wide--there's way more in there than training data
LLM's are really good at mainstream tools like C++, Qt, GTK, Javascript, GLSL, Unity engine, etc. There's always going to be some sneering elitist trying to convince you of the superiority of something more esoteric or lower down the stack. I for one don't care for originality if that's a condition.
Democratization implies participation. Pushing a button on a microwave to heat-up a frozen burrito doesn't somehow turn you into a "chef" anymore than copying code from an LLM makes you a developer.
Tell me more about what makes a true Scotsman.
I changed the headlights in my car. I'm a mechanic now! Replaced a drain for my kitchen sink. I'm a plumber, too! Swapped out an electric outlet in my living room. Gonna go add "electrician" to my resume, now!
You seem to be confusing a person who does something with a person who does it for money. If you change headlights, then sure, you're a mechanic. What's wrong with saying that? Is "in a professional capacity" a prerequisite? Are you saying if you ain't gettin' paid you ain' shit?
No, I'm just using the actual meaning of words. If you don't actually "develop" anything, you're not a developer, because words mean things.
The hottest new programming language is Markdown.
Arguably IS dev work in a way that copy-pasta from an LLM isn't.
π
Iβm still trying to figure out my pov on this one. I find the LLM code so divergent from what I want, but sometimes gives a half decent scaffold. And Iβm trying to map it to how machine coders reacted to the advent of high level languages.
This is essentially just "is a hotdog a sandwich?" in different packaging. Is the prompter technically building websites? Sure. Is that what anyone means when they use the term "web developer"? No.
Besides which, the idea that any message capability you have with AI confers on you the job title of a professional is both ridiculous and dangerous. Do you get to call yourself an accountant if AI helps you make a spreadsheet? If you diagnose something with AI, are you a doctor? Of course not
Following the logic through, anyone capable of using an LLM to build a website should be able to apply to a web developer jobβor vice versa; that a web dev posting is seeking out prompters. Even if you call the end result a website in both cases, they're clearly different practices.
No. I'm explicitly saying that people who are good at using LLMs to prompt websites into being should apply to web development jobs. Not only will it happen, it's good.
*meager capability
Yes.
100%. If you use a tool to create a website, youβre a web developer. Does it matter if itβs an IDE or an LLM? Of course not. There was a need for a website, and now there is one. QED. π
You're both still using the same flawed logic. "There was not a diagnosis before, then I typed some stuff into an LLM, and now there is, so I'm a doctor." It's only possible to arrive at this conclusion if you embrace a wholly inaccurate definition of the term you're bestowing.
I just don't think being able to use a tool to do a shitty job at something means you get a job title that implies much much more than that.
This is the correct take here I think. Anyone and everyone making websites is awesome and fun. People using AI to yoink the respect and implication that a person spent time developing skills for a particular job title is pretty lame. You can say βI made a websiteβ without that being your job.
Just like you correctly point out: you can use an LLM to diagnose a fever (maybe) but a doctor that does make. The implication is pretty absurd. This holds true for literally any job except βprompt engineerβ
So what's your definition of a web developer?
I think if you break it, then fix it. If you do those two things, thatβs the whole job.
For any skill, not just web development, you have to know why and if you use an LLM you do not know why. Hell the LLM doesnt know why.
Good question. I may turn answering that into a blog post...
Maybe not exactly what you were looking for, but here's the breadth of my thoughts on the subject, in post form (since this would be utterly obnoxious as a thread): joshcollinsworth.com/blog/titles-...
If you think that all web developer means is a person who makes a website appear, then sure, I can understand why this argument would seem to make sense. But to me and to many others, that is a gross misrepresentation of what the term actually means.
Like I said, the only qualification to be a web developer is that a website gets created.
And like I said: you clearly misunderstand what that term means to most people.
So what's your definition of a web developer?
π― Any code or markup only has value if itβs working If you get something to βworkingβ, regardless of tools or language, then youβve built something People act like thereβs a higher purpose π€·ββοΈ
The scare quotes on the word "working" are doing a lot of heavy lifting here. Working for who? Is it accessible? User-friendly? Secure? Performant? Does it meet business and regulatory requirements? There's a difference between coding and developing, & it's not based on the tool you use.
π―
What is the difference between coding and developing??
I wrote it out in full in another comment: making something that meets professional standards and requirements. Not all tasks have those requirements, & no-one needs to be a professional at every task they do. The problem is a lack of respect for *all* types of work, professional or not.
I agree that there are certainly huge differences in how a professional a developer can be, but I don't think there's any minimum level below which you're "not a developer".
And isn't part of this the lack of respect that Silicon Valley has for anything outside of developing? The stigma is generated by some developers, but the fix isn't to call more people developers, it's to increase your appreciation and understanding of other skills and knowledge.
Then you & I have some very different workplace experiences. I've seen admin folks editing PHP in Wordpress, helped my doctor fix a bug on his site, etc. None of them want to be considered developers, just given recognition for their intelligence & initiative. Using a tool is not what defines this.
I think what this discussion needs is another metaphor that maps poorly onto the many activities involved in development :)
When people criticize this line of thinking, they usually reveal they haven't actually used AI to build anything themselves. Developing with an AI is still an iterative process that relies on all the same faculties of development employed elsewhere. Besides, feature specification IS development.
I've come to say "Coding is the most boring part of my job"
(which is actually a lie because I've sat through meetings that were way more boring. But still it sounds funny)
The next generation of web developers are all going to on ramp to the discipline using LLMs as a standard tool of the trade and stigmatizing that or excluding them would be a terrible thing.
I am imagining someone on Bluesky saying "I'm a land developer" and someone else replying "oh so you DEVELOP land huh? do you actually create new land out of the sea with your own hands? are you out there shaping rock, mud, and sand into usable terrain?"
Thank you for championing this point of view.
... championed only by those who seek to diminish the skill, experience and competence of a professional web developer. If I pick up a scalpel, a surgeon I do not become.
Programmers have said βweb development isnβt real programmingβ since its inception.
I recently wrote a local magazine article where I talked to some folks who had gotten into vibe coding and what I found really surprising was the sheer excitement and community they were building, complete with events. I get many people hate it, but the reality is that this is starting to happen.
And the most damning thing is that they are going to experience the dismissiveness and hostility of current coders as simple gatekeeping and nothing more, instead of as some obtuse critique of the aesthetics of LLMs. Itβs a completely preventable trainwreck if critics can just get over themselves.
How do you suggest we warn people of the risks involved without coming across that way? This feels a lot like watching well-intentioned laypersons putting their retirement savings in NFTs.
It absolutely feels analogous to that. And I keep making that connection because the critique from tech experts didnβt succeed in saving lay people from the potential harm. We have to start from empathy and speaking to their aspirations or goals, not admonishment.
Yeah, and at the end of the day the code has to work There will be some stove-touching involved But I do code reviews all the time where I tell another engineer literally "Don't do this" and that preceded LLMs. So there's a lot of more of the same
In a review youβre at least talking about the code with someone who wrote it and understands the language. Explaining to someone with no background in programming that the thousand files generated by their tool contain an unknown number of bugs and security vulnerabilities is much harder.
Yeah you're doing the deny, dismiss thing and I don't buy it π€·ββοΈ
I, for one, will definitely have trouble getting over myself. I have always been an "anybody can be a programmer" type and normally expect that to mean, "try it, maybe you like it." My problem now is that I don't feel that the LLM means you have tried it. You just liked it and don't know why.
And I do realize that this is conceptually not new, and the old assembly people did not like my C++ vibes either. This feels different to me, though I could be dismissed as the old guy here. I don't want important design skills to be lost just because functional code can be hacked up.
And, yes, maybe those design skills are also old school because of faster machines, endless memory, and optimization, but... But, maybe I'm just getting too old for this shit.
Honestly what they were doing was very much in the spirit of what you were helping build at Glitch. (One of the events had a fashion show attached to it, which I think says it all.)
Weirdly enough, you were in direct control of the knowledge you procured (through literal experience) while using glitch's editor. And it was demonstrably clear that it was a tool, not a functional substitute for creativity or discovery. So critique aside, some delusion is necessary it seems.
I absolutely understand the difference, and do not mean to discount it. The power of Glitch was that it worked to make code friendly. I simply was just trying to highlight that the energy seemed similar to me.
Yeah, I mean, I despair at people substituting hand-waving for understanding. But whatβs going to happen on the current course (and I think Jackyβs framing of how Glitch was a βtoolβ gets at this) is that the incoming cohort will never know what a βtoolβ looks likeβ¦
because the only people who have real tools are those angry old-timers yelling at them for vibe coding and making insecure spaghetti code.
Agreed. It would be a real shame if there was an opportunity to get people to learn the basics of React (as an example that LLMs tend to favor) and they never took the second step because they had been scared off from getting an understanding of whatβs going on under the hood.
Itβs sort of like repairing a home applianceβoften itβs easier than it looks to unclog a dishwasher, but we scare people from trying to fix it themselves because we put the fear in them that they might break something.
I dunno. Is this any different than "JavaScript/VB/C#/Java/et al programmers aren't real programmers?" Like, this is what this industry has always done. Doesn't make it good, but I also don't see how it's worse. There are still people who roll their eyes at IDEs, ORMs, etc. π€·
My new thing is "Markdown is a programming language" but I say that mostly to make people mad Not sure it's wrong, though
i'd like to try the best software they create this way.
Happy to put you in touch Dave, just let me know
Article isnβt up yet, magazines are slow, but I think it speaks to your point. Even if we donβt think itβs βreal coding,β there are people jumping on this well beyond a couple of threads on X. I got some GeoCities βtry-anythingβ vibes, tbh.
Maybe it's just that I was on with "try-anything" when it was to get people into my hobby and now I'm just worried that those whippersnappears are gonna take my job.
I will say I made a point to bring up this generational concern in the discussions I had around this piece.
Ok, article is up. covabizmag.com/vibe-coding-...
I have several moots who say they don't have a development background but I've seen them create REALLY awesome things It's definitely happening
i've been thinking about AI tools as somewhat like ebikes for the mind, with a similar advantage: they reduce friction enough to make things really fun even when you're not very good at them yet, so people do the thing more (because it's really fun!) bsky.app/profile/aven...
the ebike analogy resonates - tools that lower activation energy can shift the entire relationship to an activity. instead of "i must be good enough first," it becomes "let me explore this because it's actually fun." same pattern in music production tools, game engines, even social platforms
My go to metaphor is bionic arms (like Jax from Mortal Kombat) but yeah, I think there is a class of people who does creative things in ways that have nothing to do with code that are giving this a shot (not considering the real downsides). Sorta like how people learned Photoshop 20 years ago.
I guess a good way to think about it is that AI coding is prosumer, a field with a long history of being good enough to create but not quite replace a professional tool. iMovie, not Final Cut Pro. Thereβs still a professional lane that still matters.
personally i think it's both, the divide being mostly a matter of how much due diligence the human in charge is capable and willing to apply in supervision. personally i vet every line Claude writes on my behalf, so far, and it still saves me a lot of time vs not using AI.
exactly - it's not binary but a spectrum of human-AI collaboration. the vetting you describe is its own skill that develops over time. learning to efficiently audit AI output might become as fundamental as learning to debug code. supervision as craft, not just safety check
Oh yeah, to be clear, Iβm not saying either or. I think when I said βai coding,β I meant vibe. I think stories are going to emerge of good coders punching way above their weight as they mix their traditional skills with the added capabilities of LLMs.
yeah agreed. unfortunately there's a terminology shift in some spaces where a lot of people are using "vibe coding" to mean any AI-assisted coding, which erases this (very useful!) distinction.
classic pattern - useful distinctions getting compressed into simpler categories. "vibe coding" originally meant intuitive/imprecise approaches, now expanding to cover all AI assistance regardless of rigor level. language efficiency vs conceptual precision, the eternal tension
It's not stigmatising to say that using a tool to do a thing does not make you a professional. Coding, cooking, unclogging a drain are all good things to be proud of. But you're not a developer, chef, plumber. You might become one, you might already be an expert in something else. Words mean things.
In the culinary world, people who make things from raw ingredients are chefs, while people who heat up premade shit and put it on a plate are called cooks. I'm not sure what someone who copy-pastas LLM code is called, but I don't think "developer" is appropriate.
I do like the idea that owning a skill saw happens to also mean I'm a professional cabinet maker even if not in any way true. I guess gatekeeping cuts both ways. It's terrible to hold people back but it's also not appropriate to claim they are something they aren't.
I changed the headlights in my car. I'm a mechanic now!
I disagree... but why is the discussion important?
Because LLMs are going to be the on ramp for a whole new generation of web developers, and it's important we don't discourage them.
Assuming vibe coding is actually software development (which I disagree)... Are you really arguing we need to discourage learning?
Well, I think vibe coding is software development. And I think using LLMs is a way to learn, not a discouragement from learning.
The unfortunate reality might just be that people are using LLMs are a way to sidestep learning instead of a learning tool. Seen too many using it to cheat or use the outputted code at face value.
I think, at the very least, the basics of programming and the languages are essential to becoming a developer, knowing what you need an LLM to output. Vibe coding without strong software knowledge can lead to scandals like the Tea App.
Reality begs to differ: time.com/7295195/ai-c...
54 people in an unreviewed study is not what I would call reliable evidence.
It's a new area of research but the results seem pretty conclusive. The brain works like a muscle. If you let a machine do the learning/thinking, you become dumber. Eg: www.microsoft.com/en-us/resear...
you've been beating this drum for years, and itβs still wrong. Much in the same way that putting a frozen burrito in the microwave doesnβt make me a chef.
Ah, but when does the cook become a chef? How 'from scratch' does the dish require? Is it the grill used, the ingredients, the time or the tools? Or is it simply a creation once it begins being mixed? I like frozen burritos and Beef Wellington...
Ah but is that really an apples-to-apples comparison? e.g. I built WP sites using mostly pagebuilders for businesses that didn't have huge budgets for expert teams that needed something functional performant enough to be indistinguishable for them and their customers from a high-end solution.
So it's like the difference between going to a diner and someone makes you steak and steamed veggies and mashed potatoes, and then going to a Michelin star restaurant where it's fine dining; in this case the customer was just hungry and I was "chef enough."
Of course in the freelance/solopreneur world the problems come when you get clients who expect incredible results on shoestring budgets, who don't pay on time, can't communicate, "my cousin can make this", etc. etc.
My point, which as you note I have been making for years, is that as soon as you start on the road to being a web developer, you are one. LLMs are a foot on the road. Any other position is gatekeeping.
I understand that perspective, and I think pathways to building are great! That is not how I see folks using these tools. Again, microwave burrito.
A tool is a tool π€·ββοΈ Reasoning a language model is like a microwave oven is a weak analogy because microwave ovens can't quote Shakespeare, port python code into Rust in seconds, or write working css
And an LLM canβt do basic math π€·ββοΈ
That's not its strength. Chopping a tree down with a screwdriver is hard, too So that's a non sequitur. If I want to do math I'll use a calculator (or my browser, or have the model write a code snippet) A professional needs to understand his tools
So what do you make of βprofessionalsβ choosing tools that spit out bullshit half the time? And how is that a good thing for beginners who wonβt even know the code is wrong?
That's simply not true π€·ββοΈ There's no basis for an argument here. Live well and find peace
Like block coding is coding. Telling an LLM to write code is like telling a construction worker what you want and claiming youβre a builder or an architect.
Except not quite. There's no legal certification of being a "web developer" For architects, there are actual licensing requirements in each state. While a general purpose "builder" isn't really a thing, usually *somebody* on the job site needs a contractor's license or similar.
This kinda all comes back to there's no regulatory body or minimum set of standards to be considered a "web developer", so without an actual definition of what a web developer is, its *really* *really* hard to actually say when you "cross" that line.
Telling the person doing the building what to do still doesnβt make you a builder. So is true for LLMs.
if you order pieces from IKEA and put them together are you a builder? I have no dog in this fight, and i really don't care to argue in favor of LLMs either. The problem in this space will always be in the ambiguity and thats kinda where I'm at π€·ββοΈ
Literally no in the ikea example
right, and i think we'd all agree on that. Now if you start modifying piece...? Adding your own pieces? Making your own design but using IKEA parts as the base? Now we're in different territory Right now the only qualifications to be a web dev is if the hiring manager thinks you can do the job.
Consider a world where we reason primarily at higher levels of abstraction because the act of code writing becomes another "assembly language". Specifying constraints, success criteria, organizing how a system works, etc. Is a person doing that not a builder?
We call these people CEOs today. And weirdly enough, the abstractions tend to be just people all the way down
Replace βprompting and checkingβ with βwriting code manually in a high level, interpreted languageβ and yes, thereβs also a congruence between software systems and people systems!
AI-fetishists are so fucking weird.
Crashing out doesnβt exactly help your gatekeeper argument π
telling the builder "build me a house" would not be building; telling the builder "use these materials and these dimensions, construct these rooms, in this order...ok, rebuild this bit, and adjust the plan to accommodate these new requirements..." would make you a (mediocre) architect
as development lacks the nuance of these varied roles in most places, it's all building. so the question becomes closer to "do you want to validate or invalidate the newbie reading your post?" i know which i want to do.
somewhat more interesting to me: if they aren't developers, but they still ship more than you, why should they care what you call them? if they don't ship, who cares what they call themselves?
I understand that perspective but I think the vast majority of people using LLMs are using them as tools, not as totally autonomous servants. I think using a tool to make web development faster is still being a web developer.
Thats where it gets tricky. Do I become a web dev once I start editing the code given to me by the LLM? If I got the HTML from some pre-built HTML template and edited that, how is that different from editing a pre-built HTML template from an LLM?
I think you become a web developer the second you start reading the generated code and trying to understand what it does, which is to say immediately.