401–410 of 496 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He’s written some posts I disagree with, but your comment here has no rebuttal, no counter arguments. I’m not sure you’ve even read the post.
It's context. So you know who the guy is if you're new to his writing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That still seems super naive, at least if its extended to software engineering. Companies already treat software engineers like disposable cogs to be burnt out and discarded. I don't see how AI will improve that.
I think if you’re legitimately providing value to the company, you aren’t disposable. If you are but still get canned, then you’re just dealing with irrational management, and that predates AI.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that with generative AI, I have no means of protecting my work from being stolen. It does not matter what license I put up. It doesn't even matter if I make it publicly available or not. LLMs have been trained on pirated material, they don't even have the decency to buy a copy. Even if I show my project to no one and just have a private repo on Github the code might still be used to train LLMs. Your GP…
> a private repo on Github Delete your github repos and operate your own gitolite instance. Feed vibecode to GitHub so the LLMs coprophagically train on their own slop.
I guess you're safe with a privately self hosted project that you only share with people who don't have any AI and won't reshare it.
Then again, if you even distribute only binaries then in theory the AI could copy those and reverse engineer them, or just mutate the binaries.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Geohot is a bit of a jestermaxxer, but you really haven't presented much of an argument to support your conclusions.
A whatnow?
People keep rediscovering the Bhagavad Gita in new ways https://vedabase.io/en/library/bg/2/47/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem isn’t whether or not companies need us— it’s about how many of us they need (demand), and how many of us there are (supply), because that determines our value. Companies pay people what they’ll work for, not based on how much they contribute to the bottom line; in economics, paying more than you have to for anything, including labor, is the irrational path. A steady, high demand for software developers ha…
Software is already fantastically profitable. Productive SaaS companies right now collect ~500k in revenue per employee. If what you describe happens (33% cut to salaries) then the bar for your own startup to be worth it is suddenly lower. If large companies don’t pay us good salaries then why would we not go and build better competitors without the legacy and dead weight?
That sounds like a material reduction in quality of life. Running a startup seems like it would entail way more hours worked and way more pressure, even if you were making better money. IMHO, that's not a good trade off.
[dead]
>Take Elon Musk — tremendous positive-sum deals with people everywhere, and all together, that's what got him to the top. Ah yes, "tremendous" positive-sum deals like: >Musk admitted to his biographer Ashlee Vance that Hyperloop was all about trying to get legislators to cancel plans for high-speed rail in California—even though he had no plans to build it. https://time.com/6203815/elon-musk-flaws-billionaire-visions…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think HN needs the top comment to be a vague attack on someone in response to a blog post that the comment doesn't even interact with.
Not everyone knows who geohot is and even if they do they may not see the url handle. They may (like me) think why is a glorified shower thought tweet on top of HN. They may not know that this dude was an anti-masker (with nuance) for example. This could really make them decide not to even spend too much time thinking about the passage which in theory is profound for 10 seconds but no further. As much as ad hominem a…