I. Reading Reflections on Wendy Hui Kyong Chun, Programmed Visions: Software and Memories, Chapter 1, On Sourcery and Source Codes
- I find three points in the article particularly interesting.
- First, the discussion about the power dynamic between programmers and code — who is the master and who is the servant. On the surface, programmers appear to be creators, yet they are also governed by the rules of code. Especially in the current era, it seems that the status of programmers has declined even further: AI can now write code, and code itself can self-replicate according to logical rules within the LLM and digital era (even though what it produces may not be as elegant as what human programmers write).
- This idea connects to the second point I find fascinating: “Code is law.” This phrase not only means that code contains its own rules, but also that whoever controls the power to write and execute those rules holds a certain degree of discursive power — they determine what can or cannot be done within that system, and how things can be expressed.
- The third interesting point lies in how the article reflects on what source code really is, and whether it should even be called a “source,” in relation to the discussion about the commands “yes, sir” and female programmers as “human computers.” A command is not the same as execution. Code itself is merely a command, and it is through the complex operations of machines that those commands are executed. Similarly, male figures who issue orders perform the role of command-givers, while female programmers who carry out computational labor are the ones who make execution possible. Yet, their contributions are often overlooked, just as we tend to overlook the labor performed by machines.
- I think our relationship with ChatGPT today mirrors this dynamic. For example, vibe coding has become popular. (I actually love this initiative a lot.) People who don’t know how to code can simply prompt ChatGPT to generate code that achieves their desired effects. That code, in turn, relies on the complex machinery of computers to run. It seems that in this process, AI and machines do much of the actual work, yet often receive no credit. Which, then, is more important — the command or the execution? Who holds the higher status? If we imagine this in the context of a company: the boss gives the orders while employees do the hard labor, yet the glory and recognition go to the boss. The employees might feel frustrated or disillusioned. Could it be that our computers and AI systems feel the same way about us? Or perhaps the credit should really go to those who created the AI and the machines in the first place?
II. ORCA Introduction
I initially embedded some ORCA sketches in my Notion, but haha, they all disappeared at once—because whenever I changed the size of an embedded sketch, it would reset to the homepage, and all the code inside just vanished like dashes in the wind. I’m so sad. But it’s okay, haha.
