Sounds like a you problem. I didn’t find it to be either.
616 karma · joined September 22, 2023
I give that context because unlike a lot of you, I’m not a world class FAANG engineer and never will be. It is from this context all of my thoughts on AI flow. I work with people who are trying to use AI to produce work involving entire markets, roles, skillsets and technologies they don't even know exist, let alone understand.
> I had the opposite thought.
Until I recently got pulled back deep into engineering despite not being hands on for close to a decade, so did I. I was pulled in not because of any pure technical capability but instead because it's been recognised the team requires more. The skills I thought served only to help me stay employed in any role in the most basic roles are increasingly turning out to be things other's do not have and are becoming increasingly important.
These are skills I always assumed crucial to “baseline competency” for everyone, but yet where a significant amount of them do not, and these individuals are now finding themselves in positions where they are less useful than me as a result. Many of them can not simply be acquired from AI either, and require years of active growth and practice.
> Being a generalist was very useful to me 5 years ago. Now AI models have made everyone a generalist.
I think they could, but have not. Not at a scale required for me to have significant concern.
AI works as well as the context you can provide, and you don't know what you don’t know. If the context is shallow, so to will be the output, even when it looks convincing and that “looks convincing” part I believe is the most dangerous part.
As an example; I've been (recently) attached to an engineering team, despite last holding that title pre-2015, after AI assisted work contributed to a multi million dollar contract loss. A customer experienced an outage, it was "fixed" and everyone moved on. A month later another outage occurred of a greater scale. A huge amount of time was wasted doubling down on the original AI finding, because the actual root cause had not been identified or understood, because it had been "fixed". Turns out AI had identified and "fixed" a symptom, not a root cause.
I was able to identify and resolve the real issue because I had wider operational and infrastructure context the team lacked, but the damage was done. Trust was gone, the client lost, and layoffs will follow. Those layoffs will be “because of AI,” but not any "10x'ing" of productivity. Instead it will be because plausible but wrong work made it into production and hid a very real problem as a result.
That’s the issue with AI as I see it now. It generates answers that survive initial scrutiny while completely missing wider context leading to cases where more impactful but hidden problems are introduced.
> That wide but not terribly deep skillset was immediately devalued by the AI models.
Perhaps “generalist” was the wrong word here.
Most "engineers" I have worked with are extremely deep in their area and surprisingly limited outside it. Even with AI, they struggle to move beyond their specialty because they lack broader foundations underneath not just modern infrastructure, but a range of areas equally important to the health of a business. My advantage has never been being the best engineer in the room, I knew early in my career I’d never compete with the engineer who can patch our kernel before upstream does, despite wishing I could.
What ended up mattering instead was becoming the "95% guy" across infrastructure, networking, systems, operations, business, customer success, and people management that allows me to work with people/organisations and ultimately connect dots in a way even the best engineers I have worked with can not. AI can help you develop skills in areas you don't have, but starting with most of it in areas in which people have exactly none, and where people seem extremely resistant to developing it with or without AI, has me significantly further ahead in the curve. Ironically, at least in my experience so far, AI has made that more valuable, not less.
> they make poor code
I consider this to be the least important part. We have testing, review, and process for that.
I believe (and have instructed juniors as such) that the real value of valuable technical people has never been producing rockstar code, or being a clone of Linus. It's in having a deep foundational understanding of the building blocks underpinning the now endless layers of abstraction, understanding consequences, tradeoffs, failure patterns, business impact, customer communication, customer wants and needs, and ultimately I guess to sum it up, organisational reality.
This feels more important than ever when they can generate plausible looking technical output instantly that they may be able to validate, but equally produce plausible output in a huge range of areas they absolutely can not, but for which their successes in code have led them to believe they can. Because they underestimate what they don't know and in fact often assume they know far more than they do with no real basis for such a belief.
On the whole, I think I would end my thoughts like this.
For years I lived with the stress that "rockstar" engineers would lead to me eventually becoming irrelevant, much in the same way I might fear AI. So far, being 95% across customers, leadership, sales, support, engineering, and business strategy without losing the technical depth underneath it has meant this fear was unfounded and in fact put me ahead of them. I believe I am not isolated in this, and that in fact we will see more of it.
All else aside, my roles as of the last decade often require me to be in the room and working with humans. AI has not changed this, and there is no current indication it will. The requirement will be that I continue to remain in the room, only now with AI. This is for many reasons including regulatory, because portions of what I do involve systems that if mishandled could lead to more than just a loss of profit. There may be less of these roles, but as it stands I see nothing to indicate they will not exist.
Nope, just a specific kind. Those who developed and cultivated only a very specific skill set at the expense of all others.
I used to think being a generalist, and having persued technical roles with a people facing element was to my detriment, but it’s turned out to be the best decision I ever made.
My parents had all the support they needed from their parents, but it wasn’t enough, their life was interrupted before they found their footing and they just never developed that footing once children were added to the mix.
To your point though, maybe if there was more support of parents from society from a larger perspective, maybe it would have been different.
If my upbringing hadn’t been getting bashed into an inch of my life because apparently being unable to afford rent was my fault, I suspect I would have been far more amenable to children.
My parents didn’t have their life figured out and I paid the price with extreme mental and physical abuse as their life entered a never ending downward spiral.
This had impacts on me, which extended to impacts on others.
I’m ok now, after years of intensive counselling reversed the violent tendencies that were beaten into me with their fists over two decades. It did contribute to me not having kids of my own as I didn’t want to repeat the cycle, but other things impacted it as well.
So yeah, maybe it turns out ok in some cases, maybe in others it doesn’t.
Being disabled, and having AI be a risk to the only work I can perform means financial concerns are at the heart of everything. There is simply too much financial risk even without children.
> I shouldn’t have said that with confidence
> I got ahead of myself there
> I overstepped, allow me to correct that
It’s wild seeing how often it’s wrong, and I only know it’s wrong because I am an SME or actually reading the sources. Most of my coworkers are not SMEs with what they are asking and do not read the sources.
A huge part of my job now is fixing fuck ups and failures resulting from these slop jockeys who have already moved on to slop up the next task.
So does Claude, what’s your point?
I used it and ChatGPT this week in trying to assist troubleshooting a complex DB related issue and Claude had to apologise no less than three times in which it admitted to talking complete shit.
Just one example of the kind of shit it dribbled:
> I need to be upfront with you. I should not have claimed X as if I knew that for a fact. That was overreach on my part.
This is the same thing you will see HN users saying unironically about ads. Yet the revenue of say Google and Meta would say otherwise.
You can click a button that makes a strong "suggestion" to the algorithim, which they will honor for as long as they feel like.
I went through this a few years ago when the channel of a large far right "news" broadcaster kept being jammed on my front page, and the best I could do was keep hitting the button and have it it "temporarily" be removed from my front page before it would inevitably show up again months down the line.
Perhaps it is not deliberate, and merely incompetence. Either way resolved on desktop with an addon because if I wanted to gamble, i'd go to a casino.
You are free to judge people for liking AI music, or in fact anything obviously. We all judge, and must live with judgement. But is this judgement supposed to be of any particular importance given it is equally likely someone is passing judgment on you for something they may personally dislike?
It just often feels as if there is an assumption that one's own standards are that which is "normal," while everyone else's are the weird ones. But to plenty of other people, our own interests, values, hobbies, or lifestyle choices would may be considered equally rubbish and worthy of judgement, according to their worldview and experience.
I would say, judge people if you want. As we all largely do, though I try not to do. Provided it comes with the realisation you're not somehow standing outside the exact same process.
Note: I do not willingly consume AI content, nor do I have any particular interest in doing so. But I have had people very openly judge me for things that for many of us here would be considered entirely normal, including my choice to work with computers for a living. So I do not have a tendency to give any particular weight to the "judgement" of others, silent or otherwise, where my choices do not materially impact that individual or society at large.
To lighten the mood a little more, I am quite openly judged (and silently I expect) because I have a particular enjoyment for Russian hardbass :) Which many if exposed to it I would expect consider it to be total garbage. But it does nothing to reduce my enjoyment of it and nor would I allow it too.
When would this have been? I can not remember a time this was accurate for the games of the time, outside of a handful of meme titles like the original crysis that made bad hardware bets. Most of them fulfilled the needs of the software and hardware of the time. I'd say the biggest issue was that for a time, software and hardware were advancing so rapidly that you wouldnt get very long out of your hardware, but that's just the reality of rapid development and not the fault or failure of any specific hardware release.
> Back then, you were supposed to have several of this connected SLI or somethin.
SLI was aimed squarely at enthusiasts, not at joe-average PC gamer and it was certainly never a requirement. It existed as a halo feature for people chasing maximum performance, benchmark scores, and bragging rights.
"Accused" makes it sound like these things may still be up in the air, when they very much are not. I would choose instead the much clearer "A number of those involved in DRAM production have a proven history of cartel behavior and price fixing."
For those who may not be familiar with some of the history in this area:
I have very specific requirements for motion clarity in games on modern displays. Older display technologies like CRTs and plasmas achieved this naturally through the way they operated. Most modern sample-and-hold displays do not.
You may not notice or be affected by that difference, which is fine. Couldn’t be more thrilled for you, however I am affected. Anything below 120Hz on a sample-and-hold display causes noticeable discomfort for me, and for a long time I stopped gaming entirely because I couldn’t work out why playing anything had seemingly overnight become so bad to play from a comfort perspective. Eventually I realised the issue started when I moved away from CRTs and plasma TVs to modern sample and hold displays.
I was only able to comfortably return to gaming by using very fast displays at 120Hz minimum, preferably 240Hz, because that gets closer to the motion quality I was used to from years of using PC CRTs. For games locked to 60Hz or below, I still prefer playing them on a CRT for exactly that reason and I own a number of CRTs for this reason.
You’re projecting. I think I’ve got what I enjoy from my hobby figured out after 35+ years, but thanks anyway.
> The game story, gameplay elements, and such have become secondary to the real hobby of consumerism.
You’re projecting.
> If people could have fun gaming 20 years ago
I didn’t have to endure sample and hold slop 20 years ago, now I do. You may accept or tolerate it, I am under no requirement to do so, nor live in a world where I must accept a significant performance loss is “ok” in any circumstance.
If I wanted less performance, I’d buy something with less performance to begin with.
Your definition of great performance is not mine, but it’s fantastic to watch Linux users continue to hand wave away real issues whilst continually claiming the same or better performance across the board, which is provably false.
> but has no real gains in how fun games are.
It absolutely does for me. Modern displays are absolutely dogshit. I won’t play at anything less than 144hz, as much as I can I aim for 200hz and I want that with consistent frame times.
Are you?
https://finance.yahoo.com/markets/crypto/articles/gamestop-d...
You sound quite defensive. Are you a GME bagholder?
Not everyone, but it go through the roof, or at least it did in my country. I know a lot of people who doubled or even tripled their salary during that time as these companies went absolutely ape shit. They were getting 50k increases with each position change. I've not seen anything like it before, and I honestly wonder if i'll ever see anything like it again. Kinda wish i'd been in the job market at the time, but I was off with health issues sadly so missed that boom.
> So, if someone overhired then someone else must have done without, all things considered.
They did? Again, at least in my country. Smaller shops felt the pain, as tons of people left for the pastures of big tech.
> Small businesses have been identified as the biggest losers of the 2020–2022 explosion in big tech hiring. While demand for digital transformation grew to previously unseen levels, smaller firms and businesses were severely disadvantaged by intense competition from large companies for talent, resulting in a multi-year skills shortage where less than 50% of small business vacancies were filled, compared to 65% for large firms
This is why I’ve been urging everyone I know to move away from American based services and providers. It’s slow but honest work.
Sure does. Never had a single issue with a lightning cable. Don’t know literally anyone who ever has.
Some individuals I guess just get unlucky.
None of these things will happen.
All the fruit of automation will be delivered to the capital owners (as it always has) and the rest will get nothing.
Fathers constantly think I also am a father when in shared spaces with them.
“So how old is your daughter?”
> niece
“Oh I’m sorry”
They always apologise, like I’d be offended.
I think they confuse me for the dad because we look so alike, but it’s because me and my sister are almost clones, and my niece is just a clone of my sister :)
I can’t have kids of my own, so I put a lot of time in with my niece.
It in fact is.
> Go back 5 years and you'd be right.
I’m right now.
I’ve done the testing myself, and the testing has been done by others. The vast majority of titles, especially modern titles still work better on windows. Linux only users got excited and make the claim otherwise based off a handful of cherry picked and poorly performed benchmarks and now repeat this claim endlessly despite in every sense of the word it being entirely false.
Is the situation improved? Vastly. Viable for many? Completely. I’m not saying more games dont run better on today on Linux than they used too, but this idea the majority now run better on Linux is a complete fallacy and that’s before getting into things like perhaps daring to want to use the ray tracing features you may enjoy or you in fact may not want to deal with compatibility issues which in fact very much still exist outside of kernel level anti cheat and denuvo.
From your very own link:
> There are different degrees of compatibility gamers must consider when checking if their favorite Windows games work on Linux distros like Mint, Zorin, Bazzite, or even SteamOS.
This != The majority of games now run better on Linux, it only equals that they will run in some capacity.
It in fact is. Do you often go around making claims you are entirely unqualified to make? Or is this something new you’re trying?
Let’s not leave out all the ones that don’t. Which is in fact, the majority of them. Strange how that’s always left out, we wouldn’t want to mislead people now would we?
Yes, it’s your inability to do even the most basic verification of the data underlying your understanding before making claims.
I don’t know literally anyone using twitter and yet obviously people do.
Perhaps what the individuals we know are doing are in fact reflective of not very much.