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

AI-First Company Memos

the-ai-native.company

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 216 posts

Re: AI-First Company Memos

#191

Post by DontchaKnowit »

g947o wrote: post #146
Rover222 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean get onboard or fall behind, that's the situation we're all in. It can also be exciting. If you think it's still just slop and errors when managed by experienced devs, you're already behind.

Anyone with more than 2 years of professional software engineering experience can tell this is completely nonsense.

Well 6 years experience here and I personally saved about 4 hours of work today using claude. My coworker also just solved a problem I had been looking into for a few days in about an hour with claude. So, I think maybe you are just a bit behind the curve.

Re: AI-First Company Memos

#192

Post by DontchaKnowit »

otabdeveloper4 wrote: post #174
solidasparagus wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't really care if other people want to be on or off the AI train (no hate to the gp poster), but if you are on the train and you read the above comment, it's hard not to think that this person might be holding it wrong. Using sonnet 4 or even just not knowing which model they are using is a sign of someone not really taking this tech all that seriously. More or less anyone who is seriously trying to adopt this t…

The whole point of "AI" in the first place is that it just vibes and doesn't need an instruction manual! If "learn to hold it not wrong" is your message, then the AI bubble will be popping very soon.

How is that the point of AI. The point is that it can chug through things that would take humans hours in a matter of seconds. You still have to work with it. But it reduces huge tasks into very small ones

Re: AI-First Company Memos

#193

Post by Rover222 »

steveBK123 wrote: post #183
Rover222 wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah I think it'll consolidate around one or two players. Mostly likely Xai, even though they're behind at the moment. No one can compete with the orbital infrastructure, if that works out. Big if. That's all a different topic. But I feel you, part of me wants to quit too, but can't afford that yet.

I'm sorry but if you are taking orbital datacenters seriously in the same posts as boosting AI, it's hard not to discount your takes on AI severely.

In 4 to 5 years it'll be the dominant source of compute. If you're not taking it seriously... I don't know. But it's coming.

Power generation cannot be built quickly enough.

Re: AI-First Company Memos

#194

Post by joquarky »

munk-a wrote: post #109
nilkn wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The competitive advantage belongs to companies, not engineers. That's exactly the conflict. What you're predicting -- voluntary adoption due to advantages -- is precisely what is happening, but it's happening at the company level. It's why companies are mandating it and some engineers are resisting it. Just like in the riots I mentioned -- introduction of agricultural machinery was a unilateral decision made by lando…

A well run company would provide an incentive to their employees for increasing their productivity. Why would employees enthusiastically respond to a mandate that will provide them with no benefit? Companies are just groups of employees - and if the companies are failing to provide a clear rationale to increase productivity those companies will fail.

> A well run company would provide an incentive to their employees for increasing their productivity.

Sure, that's tautological.

But in reality, these don't exist.

Re: AI-First Company Memos

#195

Post by azinman2 »

plaidfuji wrote: post #48

Fiverr CEO goes on a pretty dark rant about how people who don’t upskill and convert to AI workflows will have to change professions, etc. Then concludes his email with: > I have asked Shelly to free up time on my calendar next week so people can have conversations with me about our future. I assume Shelly is an AI, and not human headcount the CEO is wasting on menial admin tasks??

The irony is if you take this to the limit, ChatGPT replaces fiverr

Re: AI-First Company Memos

#196

Post by reverius42 »

Rover222 wrote: post #156
emp17344 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>the multiplier effect of AI is being used to reduce head count more than to drastically increase net output of a team This simply isn’t how economics works. There is always additional demand, especially in the software space. Every other productivity-boosting technology has resulted in an increase in jobs, not a decrease.

Well that's certainly and obviously how it's working at the moment in the software industry. We're in the transition between traditional coding jobs and agentic managers (or something like that)

It's kind of inexplicable though, unless AI being the reason for layoffs is a lie, because it's true that historically there has always been way more demand for software than people who can make it (hence the decades of rising salaries relative to other professions).

It seems like too much of a coincidence that the AI got good enough to replace humans at exactly the same time that humans in general don't need as much software made.

Re: AI-First Company Memos

#197

Post by munksbeer »

shimman wrote: post #185
Sevii wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The industrial revolution was extremely hard on individual craftspeople. Jobs became lower paying and lower skilled. People were forced to move into cities. Conditions didn't improve for decades. If AI is anything comparable it's not going to get better in 5-10 years. It will be decades before the new 'jobs' come into place.

Seriously, it took nearly ~150 years before the people actually benefited from the industrial revolution. Saying that we need to condemn two lifetimes worth of suffering to benefit literally a few thousand people out of billions is absolutely ludicrous.

This is basically not true. It's hard to debate this when we don't start from a position of truth.

Re: AI-First Company Memos

#198

Post by g947o »

DontchaKnowit wrote: post #191
g947o wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone with more than 2 years of professional software engineering experience can tell this is completely nonsense.

Well 6 years experience here and I personally saved about 4 hours of work today using claude. My coworker also just solved a problem I had been looking into for a few days in about an hour with claude. So, I think maybe you are just a bit behind the curve.

Please stay on topic and focus on the "slop" and "fall behind" part.

What's in your comment has been said maybe 1000 times just over the past day, so I'm afraid that information is not particularly helpful.

Re: AI-First Company Memos

#199

Post by steveBK123 »

Rover222 wrote: post #193
steveBK123 wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry but if you are taking orbital datacenters seriously in the same posts as boosting AI, it's hard not to discount your takes on AI severely.

In 4 to 5 years it'll be the dominant source of compute. If you're not taking it seriously... I don't know. But it's coming. Power generation cannot be built quickly enough.

Launch costs are at best like $1000 per pound to reach LEO. Terrestrial data centers are becoming the size of small cities. In what planet does the $1000/lb headwind ever make this work? ` The only logic to orbital servers is that it’s a libertarian dream to be government regulation free. It is objectively more expensive and difficult to build and maintain by orders of magnitude otherwise.

Re: AI-First Company Memos

#200

Post by shimman »

munksbeer wrote: post #197
shimman wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seriously, it took nearly ~150 years before the people actually benefited from the industrial revolution. Saying that we need to condemn two lifetimes worth of suffering to benefit literally a few thousand people out of billions is absolutely ludicrous.

This is basically not true. It's hard to debate this when we don't start from a position of truth.

It pretty much is, unless you think it's totally cool to work in highly dangerous jobs that paid poorly while being treated like chattel slaves. There is a reason why the 1800s had the most violent labor actions in the US, it wasn't because they were treated "well."

Completely disingenuous, learn your labor history.

Post reply on HN