Live data from Hacker News

The tech market is fundamentally fucked up and AI is just a scapegoat

bayramovanar.substack.com

51–60 of 230 posts

Re: The tech market is fundamentally fucked up and AI is just a scapegoat

#51

The industry was always a disaster, but if you take a disaster and put AI in the mix you get a disaster at light speed. It was always getting worse and worse but now it’s speedrunning it.

Computers are a lever, a force multiplier. If your process is shit, you can shit faster with a computer. LLMs are another force multiplier. If your computerized process is a disaster … well, you said it and you’re right.

When I was young, the quote was still:

  To err is human, to really foul things up requires a computer.

Re: The tech market is fundamentally fucked up and AI is just a scapegoat

#52
post #15

>In traditional industries like manufacturing you don’t hire 500 factory workers unless you have a production line that needs them. You don’t over-hire based on a guess. Traditional factories do make wrong guesses about the future and overhire all the time. Example: https://www.google.com/search?q=Ford+f150+lightning+laid+off...

The whole article rests on this false economic claim, that traditional industries don’t overhire based on expectations. They absolutely do, ALL THE TIME. Manufacturing, automotive, airlines, energy etc. all of them make demand bets and lay people off when those bets fail.

Cheap money amplified this cycle, but this isn’t a tech specific "failure", it’s just how forecasting under uncertainty work.

It’s incredible how some engineers assume they understand economics, then proceed to fail on some of its most basic premises. This tends to happen when engineering-style certainty is applied to systems that are driven by incentives and uncertainty.

Re: The tech market is fundamentally fucked up and AI is just a scapegoat

#53
I'm not arguing against the core arguments of the article (I agree with most of the points), but on the other hand, software development is (at least currently) an essentially iterative process - one that differs greatly from other production processes (e.g. buildings, cars). We all know how difficult it is to estimate how much development time something takes. Planning is hard and outcomes have therefore greater variability.

Re: The tech market is fundamentally fucked up and AI is just a scapegoat

#54
I will add some commentary from my subjective POV in IT:

“Efficiency” is a damned lie. Enterprise IT is one of the most inefficient spaces out there, full of decades of band-aids layered atop one another in the form of fad products, fancy buzzwords, and “defining leadership” projects. The reason you cannot get shit done at work quickly isn’t because of bureaucracy or management layers standing in the way so much as it’s the vested interest in weakening IT and Ops teams so that those higher-ups can retain more of the profit pie for themselves.

My entire job is to make technology become so efficient that it fades into the background as a force amplifier for your actual work, and I’ve only spent ~1/3rd of my 15+ year career actually doing that in some form. I should be the one making sure documentation is maintained so that new hires onboard in days, not months. I should be the owner of the network and/or compute infrastructure the business needs to operate, not some MSP in another country whose contract you’ll replace with a lower bidder next year. I should be the one driving improvements to the enterprise technology stack in areas we could benefit from, not some overpriced consultant justifying whatever the CIO has a hard-on for from his recent country club outing.

Consultants, outsourcing, and fad-chasing aren’t efficient. They do not better the business, overwhelmingly. AI won’t magically fix broken pipelines, bad datasets, or undocumented processes, because it is only ever aware of what it is told to be aware of, and none of those groups have any interest or incentive in actually fixing broken things.

The tech industry is woefully and powerfully inefficient. It hoards engineers and then blocks them from solving actual problems in favor of prestige projects. It squanders entire datacenters on prompt ingestion and token prediction instead of paying a handful of basically competent engineers a livable salary to buy a home near the office and fucking fix shit. Its leaders demand awards and recognition for existing, not for actually contributing positively back to society - which leads to stupid and short-sighted decision-making processes and outcomes.

And all of this, as OP points out, is built on a history of government bailouts for failures and cheap debt for rampant speculation. There’s no incentive to actually be efficient or run efficient businesses, and this is the resultant mess.

Re: The tech market is fundamentally fucked up and AI is just a scapegoat

#55

This tracks, reminds me of Cory Doctorow's talk on reverse centaur situation where he gave a nice rundown of the tech market of the past 15+ years. Do anything and everything to remain in "growth stock" category. Spend money on useless features, on engineers working on those useless features - as long as it will make your company look like it has bright future and space to grow.

Wasn’t familiar with this, tracked it down

https://locusmag.com/feature/commentary-cory-doctorow-revers...

> There’s a bit of automation theory jargon that I ab­solutely adore: “centaurs” and “reverse-centaurs.” A centaur is a human being who is assisted by a machine that does some onerous task (like transcribing 40 hours of podcasts). A reverse-centaur is a machine that is assisted by a human being, who is expected to work at the machine’s pace.

Re: The tech market is fundamentally fucked up and AI is just a scapegoat

#56

[flagged]

Cult members don't want to hear their false god is a liar.

Apparently 73% of LLM resources are used for emotional context support.

People need to go outside for a daily walk, and meet real people. Most folks are actually fun to be around. =3

Re: The tech market is fundamentally fucked up and AI is just a scapegoat

#57
Proven businesses can always borrow at fairly low rates. When capital gets really cheap it starts to incentivize greater amounts of risk taking because investors actually want risk.

If you are starting a dry cleaning business, you have a cost of the equipment, rent and other well known factors. Starting a tech company in a new and unproven area has different expenses and a different risk/reward profile.

Malinvestment can come in a lot of flavors. Cheap capital will result in too many dry cleaners and also too many startups that probably shouldn't have gotten funding.

The downside comes in various forms. 1) existing dry cleaning businesses are less profitable because of increased competition, and 2) startups hire scarce engineers and drive up wages, which drive up costs for everyone.

Cheap capital is justified bc the goal is growth, but it is a blunt instrument that creates hot spots and neglected areas simultaneously. Compare the approach used in the US with the approach taken by China. Chinese firms face significantly more competition than firms in the capitalist US, but overall China's policies are crafted with a more deliberate eye toward their distributional consequences and notions of the greater good are much more subject to sharp critique and pressure across social and industrial strata.

What we are seeing in the US is that policymakers have come to believe that the growth-focused approach is an escape hatch that can be used to reduce the effects of other bad decisions, but at some point the size of the inflated economy gets big enough that it takes on a political life of its own -- post-911 defense contractors have dramatically more lobbying and policy-influencing power than they had prior. Today, systemically risky financial industry participants have significantly more political clout than they had before the 2008 correction.

In other words, the fabric of (political) reality shifts and it becomes hard to identify what normal would look like or feel like. In my view, AI adds fuel to the existing fire -- it rapidly shifts demand away from software engineers and onto strategists -- give the team a strategy and now with AI the team will have it done in a few weeks. If not, a competitor will do it without poaching anyone from your team.

And market forces include both creative and destructive forces. Firm failure is a feature, not a bug.

Re: The tech market is fundamentally fucked up and AI is just a scapegoat

#58

There is some fat in the system that likely needs to cut off. Here is Google complaint about not serving lobster biscue: https://x.com/Andercot/status/1768346257486184566?s=20 Zero interest rate phenomenon.

Reminder: this tweet could be totally made up.

Re: The tech market is fundamentally fucked up and AI is just a scapegoat

#59
post #14

From around 2010-2020 the stock market was rewarding growth more than profit. That means large tech employers hired like crazy to indicate growth. Then came COVID and the economy contracted. As a result the stock market changed to reward profitability. So, excess developers had to go. We are still feeling this. I do agree that AI is not to blame for this. In fact I will go further and claim that AI is a net negative…

Qualification is a very difficult problem, but I think everyone resents the characterization of "bad devs". Things like the Metaverse failure - apparently $70bn spent for no results - are primarily management failures. Like the Cybertruck, they succeeded 100% at building a product that the CEO wanted. The problem is that the CEO is basically the only person that wants that product. There's also the thought nobody wan…

Plenty of people wanted the Cybertruck, it's just that price is too high. It was originally announced to be under $40k, and with incentives, could have been in the $30k's.

The F-150 Lightening had the same problem.

Post reply on HN