Believe the Checkbook
robertgreiner.com
Believe the Checkbook
1–10 of 83 posts
Re: Believe the Checkbook
#2The ten dollar word for this is “revealed preferences”
Re: Believe the Checkbook
#3People speak in relative terms and hear in absolutes. Engineers will never completely vanish, but it will certainly feel like it if labor demand is reduced enough.
Technically, there’s still a horse buggy whip market, an abacus market, and probably anything else you think technology consumed. It’s just a minuscule fraction of what it once was.
Re: Believe the Checkbook
#4> Treat AI as force multiplication for your highest-judgment people. The ones who can design systems, navigate ambiguity, shape strategy, and smell risk before it hits. They’ll use AI to move faster, explore more options, and harden their decisions with better data.
Clever pitch. Don't alienate all the people who've hitched their wagons to AI, but push valuing highly-skilled ICs as an actionable leadership insight.
Incidentally, strategy and risk management sound like a pay grade bump may be due.
Re: Believe the Checkbook
#5[dead]
Re: Believe the Checkbook
#6The ten dollar word for this is “revealed preferences”
I learned that phrase from one of the bold sentences in this article.
Re: Believe the Checkbook
#7> The bottleneck isn’t code production, it is judgment.
It always surprises me that this isn't obvious to everyone. If AI wrote 100% of the code that I do at work, I wouldn't get any more work done because writing the code is usually the easy part.
Re: Believe the Checkbook
#8"Believe the checkbook? Why do that when I can get pump-faked into strip-mining my engineering org?"- VPs everywhere
Re: Believe the Checkbook
#9Something about the way the article sets up the conversation nags at me a bit - even though it concludes with statements and reasoning I generally agree quite well with. It sets out what it wants to argue clearly at the start:
> Everyone’s heard the line: “AI will write all the code; engineering as you know it is finished... The Bun acquisition blows a hole in that story.”
But what the article actually discusses and demonstrates by the end of the article is how the aspects of engineering beyond writing the code is where the value in human engineers is at this point. To me that doesn't seem like an example of a revealed preference in this case. If you take it back to the first part of the original quote above it's just a different wording for AI being the code writer and engineering being different.
I think what the article really means to drive against is the claim/conclusion "because AI can generate lots of code we don't need any type of engineer" but that's just not what the quote they chose to set out against is saying. Without changing that claim the acquisition of Bun is not really a counterexample, Bun had just already changed the way they do engineering so the AI wrote the code and the engineers did the other things.
Re: Believe the Checkbook
#10> The bottleneck isn’t code production, it is judgment. It always surprises me that this isn't obvious to everyone. If AI wrote 100% of the code that I do at work, I wouldn't get any more work done because writing the code is usually the easy part.
I'll stare at a blank editor for an hour with three different solutions in my head that I could implement, and type nothing until a good enough one comes to mind that will save/avoid time and trouble down the road. That last solution is not best for any simple reason like algorithmic complexity or anything that can be scraped from web sites.