Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why are executives enamored with AI, but ICs aren't?

johnjwang.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 179 posts

Re: Why are executives enamored with AI, but ICs aren't?

#161

Post by glouwbug »

bitwize wrote: post #131
echelon wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Work is delivering value. Yes, we have craftsmanship, but at the end of the day everything is ephemeral and impermanent and the world continues on without remembering us. I think both the IC and executive are correct in superposition.

Indeed. Even the ur-craftsman, John Carmack, says that delivering value to customers is pretty much the only thing that matters in development. If AI lets you do that faster, cheaper, you'd be a fool not to use it. There's a reason why it's virtually a must in professional software engineering now.

Right, but Carmack has always delivered. I need someone without Carmack’s ability to show me what value they can deliver with AI

Re: Why are executives enamored with AI, but ICs aren't?

#162

Post by ryandrake »

9dev wrote: post #153
atmavatar wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ICs dislike this because executives haven't been shy that their goal in increasing productivity with LLMs is to reduce headcount. Additionally, we have 50 years of data showing that increased productivity only marginally increases pay, if at all - all the gains are captured by the executives. The more appropriate tools for ICs are torches and pitchforks.

But what’s your expectations here? Should companies pretend LLMs don’t exist and just continue as before, or do we need some way of acknowledging there’s a new technology that, when put to good use, can increase productivity?

It remains to be seen whether LLMs actually increase productivity. The jury is far, FAR from delivering the verdict on this one. All I'm seeing out there is blind hope, hype and executive-level excitement about cutting staff.

Re: Why are executives enamored with AI, but ICs aren't?

#163

Post by mlazos »

sarchertech wrote: post #138
thunky wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I do regularly read the code that Claude outputs You probably could have s/Claude/Human/ in your rant and been just as accurate. I don't know how many times I've flagged these issues in code reviews. And that's only assuming the human even bothered to write tests... What I find is that when I ask AI to write tests it writes too many, and I agree with you that a lot of them are useless. But then I just tell it that,…

How do you know whether the tests it’s spits out are bad if you don’t read the tests. We’re not dealing AGI here. Tests aren’t strictly necessary for humans. They are for AI. AI requires guardrails to keep from spinning out. That’s essentially the entire premise of the agentic workflow.

I read the tests, it also is really really good to have Claude verify that removing the changes in question break the tests. This brings the quality way way up for me.

Re: Why are executives enamored with AI, but ICs aren't?

#164

Post by gamblor956 »

gerdesj wrote: post #67
SirensOfTitan wrote: post #13

I think executives are excited about AI because it confirms their worldview: that the work is a commodity and the real value lies in orchestration and strategy. It doesn't help that the west has a clear bias wherein moving "up" is moving away from the work. Many executives often don't know what good looks like at the detail level, so they can't evaluate AI output quality.

MD here, of a really small company (and I'm not a doctor). I'm (mildly) excited by LLMs because I love a new shiny tool that does appear to have quite some utility. My analogy these days is a screwdriver. Let's ignore screw development for now. The first screwdrivers, which we still use, are slotted and have a habit of slipping sideways and jumping (camming out). That's err before LLMs ... something ... something. Fa…

This is actually a really good analogy, because electric drivers are the wrong tool 99% of the time and most people don't use them.

Re: Why are executives enamored with AI, but ICs aren't?

#165

Post by 3vidence »

hiq wrote: post #90
garciasn wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I lead a team of Data Engineers, DevOps Engineers, and Data Scientists. I write code and have done so literally for my entire life. AI-assisted codegen is incredible; especially over the last 3-4m. I understand that developers feel their code is an art form and are pissed off that their life’s work is now a commodity; but, it’s time to either accept it and move on with what has happened, specialize as an actual artis…

> their life’s work is now a commodity Which parts of it exactly? I've considered for loops and if branches "commodities" for a while. The way you organize code, the design, is still pretty much open and not a solved problem, including by AI-based tools. Yes we can now deal with it at a higher level (e.g. in prompts, in English), but it's not something I can fully delegate to an agent and expect good results (althoug…

In general I don't disagree that it is a multiplier in the hands of good engineers but it also seems to be a multiplier in the hands of bad engineers (multiples of bad). The question is in larger organizations is having 5x the good commits and 5x the bad commits stable? The answer seems TBD from my perspective.

Re: Why are executives enamored with AI, but ICs aren't?

#168

Post by smrtinsert »

SirensOfTitan wrote: post #13

I think executives are excited about AI because it confirms their worldview: that the work is a commodity and the real value lies in orchestration and strategy. It doesn't help that the west has a clear bias wherein moving "up" is moving away from the work. Many executives often don't know what good looks like at the detail level, so they can't evaluate AI output quality.

One hundred percent. Leadership consolidating around like the rebirth of offshoring.

For the record all your prompts are tracked and easily viewable by whoever oversees it at your company. Don't prompt more than you have to and certainly don't give it your best ids. This is value at scale.

Re: Why are executives enamored with AI, but ICs aren't?

#169

Post by smrtinsert »

sigbottle wrote: post #137
Eufrat wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm (mildly) excited by LLMs because I love a new shiny tool that does appear to have quite some utility. I really think a lot of folks were conned by a smooth operator and a polished demo, so now everyone has to suffer though having this nebulous thing rammed down our throats regardless of its real utility because people with higher pay grades believe it has utility. It feels like a lot of “AI is inevitable; you a…

Classic kafka trap! The mere sign of resistance is a sign of a deeper psychological incompatibility that fundamentally needs to be worked through until you agree with the state.

The dreaded "not aligned"!

Re: Why are executives enamored with AI, but ICs aren't?

#170

Post by fcarraldo »

politelemon wrote: post #102
fcarraldo wrote: post #10

AI allows executives to spend R&D to create a flywheel which builds more, faster, without hiring more. It makes every individual employee able to deliver more. ICs dislike this because it raises expectations and puts the spotlight on delivery velocity. In a manufacturing analogy, it’s the same as adding robots that enables workers to pack twice as many pallets per day. You work the same hours, but you’re more tired,…

> it’s the same as adding robots that enables workers to pack twice as many pallets per day. It isn't this. This is the executive's misinterpretation.

Sure, but perception is reality and the executives will aim to realize this by throwing considerable amounts of capital behind it. Whether it’s achievable is really not known, yet.
Post reply on HN