Live data from Hacker News

I believe there are entire companies right now under AI psychosis

twitter.com

81–90 of 1001 posts

Re: I believe there are entire companies right now under AI psychosis

#81

Mitchell aches because his career has been solving broadly scoped problems by building a collection of thoughtful primitives for others to extend. LLMs seem to do the opposite but at great speed, and it hurts to watch.

Reading more, it seems part of his point is “if you’re making these primitives, it’s up to adopters to deploy, so mean-time-to-recovery isn’t that relevant.” Which is valid I guess.

But equally, like, do people need Terraform if they can just tell codex “put it live”, and does that hurt to see?

Re: I believe there are entire companies right now under AI psychosis

#82
I'm going through a mixed experience regarding this, personally.

Management is really pushing AI. It's obnoxious, and their idea on how it fits into my team's job specifically is completely, hilariously detached from reality. On the off chance someone says something reasonable, unless it fits the mold, it's immediately discarded. The mold being "spec driven development". We're not even a product team for crying out loud. I straight up started skipping these meetings for the sake of my sanity. It's mindwash, and it's genuinely dizzying. The other reason I stopped attending is because it ironically makes me more disinterested in AI, which I consider to be against my personal interests on the long run overall.

On the flipside, I love using Claude (in moderation). It keeps pulling off several very nice things, some of which Mitchell touched on in this post (the last one):

- I write scripts and automation from time to time; Claude fleshes them out way better with way more safety features, feature flags, and logging than I'd otherwise have capacity to spend time on

- Claude catches missed refactors and preexisting defects, and does a generally solid pass checking for defects as a whole

- Claude routinely helps with doing things I'd basically never be able to justify spending time on. Yesterday, I one-shotted an entire utility application with a GUI to boot, and it worked first try; I was beyond impressed.

- Claude helped me and a colleague do some partisan cross-team investigation in secret. We're migrating and we were evaluating . There was a lot of them. Management was in a limbo, unsure what to do, flip-flopping between bad options. In a desperate moment, I figured, hey, we kinda have a thing now for investigating an inhuman amount of stuff in detail - so I've put together a care package for my colleague with all our code, a bunch of context, a capture of all the input data for the past one week, and all the logs generated. Colleague put his team's side of the story next to it, and with the help of Claude, did some extremely nice cross-functional investigation. Over the course of a few weeks, he was able to confirm like a dozen showstopper bugs, many of which would have been absolutely fiendish if not impossible to fix (or even catch) if we went live without knowing about them. One even culminated in a whole-ass solution re-architecturing. We essentially tore down a silo wall with Claude's help in doing this.

So ultimately, it really is a mixed bag, with some really deep lowpoints and some really nice higlights. I also just generally find it weird that a technical tool [category] is being pushed down people's throats with a technical reasoning, but by management. One would think this goes bottom up, or is at least a lot more exploratory. The frenzy is real.

Re: I believe there are entire companies right now under AI psychosis

#83

This post calls out how you can't argue with these people because they say its fine to ship bugs because the agents will fix them so quickly and at a scale humans can't do!" the top reply is from someone doing exactly that, arguing "but the agents are so fast!"

I was talking with a friend in the early days of AI boom. I argued that over-reliance in AI will create all kinds of catastrophes. The answer I got is "It's game theory. Someone will do it, and you'll be forced to do it, too. It can't be that bad". I mean, yes, logic is useful, but ignorance of risks? Assuming that moving blazingly fast and pulverizing things will result in good eventually? This AI thing is not progr…

> The answer I got is "It's game theory. Someone will do it, and you'll be forced to do it, too. It can't be that bad".

Oof. Potential "bad" outcomes of "game theory" should be calibrated to include all the bloody wars and genocides throughout recorded history.

Why did the Foi-ites kill every man, woman and child of the conquered Bar-ite city? Because if they didn't, then they'd be at a disadvantage if the Bar-ites didn't reciprocate in the cities they conquered...

Re: I believe there are entire companies right now under AI psychosis

#84

I'm pretty sure he's talking about companies and people outsourcing their decision making and thinking to AI and not really about using AI itself. I don't think using AI to write code is AI psychosis or bad at all, but if you just prompt the AI and believe what it tell you then you have AI psychosis. You see this a lot with financial people and VC on twitter. They literally post screenshots of ChatGPT as their thinki…

He uses AI himself, so I agree he doesn't see AI use as black/white. Hard agree about ideas, thinking, advice. AI's sycophancy is a huge subtle problem. I've tried my best to create a system prompt to guard against this w/ Opus 4.7. It doesn't adhere to it 100% of the time and the longer the conversation goes, the worse the sycophancy gets (because the system instructions become weaker and weaker). I have to actively…

share the prompt!

Re: I believe there are entire companies right now under AI psychosis

#86
post #74

[flagged]

The lists of who's, what's, why's, and when's always change but when the decades pass it's never one narrow type of people or the "not me's" which are gullible - it's just human nature + regional timing. The targeted groups are the only ones who are really easy to break out.

Re: I believe there are entire companies right now under AI psychosis

#87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was talking with a friend in the early days of AI boom. I argued that over-reliance in AI will create all kinds of catastrophes. The answer I got is "It's game theory. Someone will do it, and you'll be forced to do it, too. It can't be that bad". I mean, yes, logic is useful, but ignorance of risks? Assuming that moving blazingly fast and pulverizing things will result in good eventually? This AI thing is not progr…

reliance, not resilience

Yep, you're right. I'm a bit tired and my fingers had a mind of their own.

Thanks. :)

Re: I believe there are entire companies right now under AI psychosis

#88
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it is required now, or all civilization collapses.

You're going to have to expand on this one.

They are expressing the idea that AI is so effective that it will make human work redundant necessitating a decoupling of resource allocation as a reward for performing work.

I don’t agree, but that’s the thinking

Re: I believe there are entire companies right now under AI psychosis

#89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He uses AI himself, so I agree he doesn't see AI use as black/white. Hard agree about ideas, thinking, advice. AI's sycophancy is a huge subtle problem. I've tried my best to create a system prompt to guard against this w/ Opus 4.7. It doesn't adhere to it 100% of the time and the longer the conversation goes, the worse the sycophancy gets (because the system instructions become weaker and weaker). I have to actively…

share the prompt!

For a start, invert - ask about the exact opposite in a separate session.

Re: I believe there are entire companies right now under AI psychosis

#90

This post calls out how you can't argue with these people because they say its fine to ship bugs because the agents will fix them so quickly and at a scale humans can't do!" the top reply is from someone doing exactly that, arguing "but the agents are so fast!"

I was talking with a friend in the early days of AI boom. I argued that over-reliance in AI will create all kinds of catastrophes. The answer I got is "It's game theory. Someone will do it, and you'll be forced to do it, too. It can't be that bad". I mean, yes, logic is useful, but ignorance of risks? Assuming that moving blazingly fast and pulverizing things will result in good eventually? This AI thing is not progr…

An interesting ethical framework, your friend has.
Post reply on HN