121–130 of 272 posts
Whenever someone complaints about LLMs eroding their career, I advise them to read The Profession by Isaac Asimov. TLDR: there will be less programmers and they will be better on average.
> On novel work: > Work that introduces new methods, highly creative ideas, or solutions that have not been used or experienced before. More generally, an approach that introduces an innovative strategy to solve a complex problem. Something that I've been thinking about for the past year or so is coming to grips with the fact that the vast majority (anecdote) of software engineering work is not novel (and maybe that'…
Amd do it better in most cases imo. Which is also hard to come to terms with, because there is a good bit of elitism/entitlement going around. The idea that a SWE is working at a higher level, which is beyond the reach of mere mortals, so therefore the high compensation is justified. Meanwhile everyone is, for the most part, doing some slight variation of the same thing as you suggested.
After starting out working minimum wage jobs I've always thought that the work gets easier and easier from there. Compensation and hard work are negativity correlated.
> The demand for software most certainly has an upper limit. No, it does not. There is no ceiling for complexity.
Entropy makes sure that you can't scale systems into infinite completely.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In a perfect world, yes. However, the current tech world is akin to a flea market. Those who shout out more stand out more.
Surely you can judge people by results though?
> On novel work: > Work that introduces new methods, highly creative ideas, or solutions that have not been used or experienced before. More generally, an approach that introduces an innovative strategy to solve a complex problem. Something that I've been thinking about for the past year or so is coming to grips with the fact that the vast majority (anecdote) of software engineering work is not novel (and maybe that'…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There is a visceral hate in the artistic community toward AI that doesn't really make sense to me tbh. Really? Have you seen how the CEOs marketed it and talked about people in that community? Artists hate it, because they listened to what AI community and leadership were openly saying. The weirdest thing on this all is how people find the hate puzzling considering initial rhetoric coming from the industry itself.…
Right? AI evangelists never seem to miss an opportunity to be clueless about this "Why do you guys hate AI so much? All I did was tell you it's so great that it makes your skills worthless and how glad I am that I won't need people like you around in the future to make art and designs. What's wrong with that?"
It is just ... we insulted those people, told them they are worthless, when they want to talk about things they like doing we tell them they should use AI and then we act all puzzled they hate us. How could that happen.
And you can see it again and again.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We should remember that the outside world care about things that work, not about how good they are inside sadly. Until they go wrong because they are not good inside.
I don’t know, I don’t think anyone really cares. I can’t unmute videos on Twitter/X on iOS, it’s been like that for over a year. I get a new disclosure that my data was leaked about every month. Palantir and possible Claude targeted a girl’s school for missile strikes. I still have to tell Claude what day or time it is right now sometimes, or it’ll give me medical advice for my dog and the dosing or some important nu…
I've felt this way for a long time now. There's no substance to anything anymore. The US economy feels like a more advanced Nigerian scam, where very few things that the US makes provides anything of actual value and substance. Americans just can't afford quality anymore. We decided we'd like to have significant amounts of garbage rather than fewer quality things. This change was likely due to revving the economy toward quarterly profit goals and GDP growth over everything else. Theoretically, prioritizing investments should have "trickled down" where companies could have more capital to invest in workers, R&Dand quality...but instead it all just got soaked up into executive pay and the stock market.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think in the future, those who succeed will be equivalent to wayfinders. In the future, those who succeed will be the owners of capital.
Past, Present, and Future. If you control the means of production you win. Knowledge, skill, and experience are largely irrelevant to the conversation. I’ve held this opinion for quite some time and would be interested to hear alternative perspectives.
Yeah, but we were talking about only success, not winning.
In the past and the present, you could succeed purely on a combination of skill, talent and labour. This approach looks like it will not work much longer.