21–25 of 25 posts
Imagine telling students in school to not bother learning physics or calculus, as others have already mastered those fields.
"Your employability is higher if you get good at doing things that few other people are good at doing." There, I just condensed the entire article into one sentence.
Thanks for all the feedback! To address some of the key points in the comments:
1. Completely agree learning the fundamentals is important. I did mention groking the underlying CompSci in the article.
2. The market has generally decided that an AI Engineer is an engineer who is proficient at applying AI in the products they create – not somebody who uses AI to create the products. This article used the former as its example, not the latter.
3. Completely agree that an engineer in the upper right quadrant could just as well be a fundraiser and founder, too. If that's what they want, more power to them. In any event, I love creating a culture on my teams that gets engineers routinely thinking like customer-centric founders. Which brings us to...
4. I don't view prioritizing new technologies as hype-chasing. There's an enormous amount of EQ required to understand which technologies are likely to be a net positive vs. negative to a marketplace and the customers that comprise it over the long-term, hence the point about customer-centricity. 20-30 years ago, I was all in on dyanmic web technologies but wasn't investing time or energy into Flash or Java applets. I was, generally speaking, never a proponent of NoSQL or microservice architectures, but did love iterative improvements to SQL databases and the advent of cloud-native platforms. For the past few years, I've been all in on LLMs but never bothered to dabble in blockchain, Web3, NFTs, or the metaverse. There's a reason for all of this contrast, and it's grounded in focusing on what actually drives outcomes for customers, not just what's trending. It comes down to making intelligent bets on the future.
Cheers!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see anything "sexist", not by any stretch. You may want to consider that you're projecting.
I assume they thought the person on top of the mountain is a man instead of the same woman with her hair tied back.
the main thing "rare" engineers would have in common is that they think for themselves and dont need preachy blog posts with ambiguously sexist AI graphics to tell them how.
I don't see anything "sexist", not by any stretch. You may want to consider that you're projecting.