I, and I'm pretty sure I share this impression with many of you, would feel a whole lot more optimistic about AI for software engineering (which truly has been transformational) if it didn't come with layoffs or the promise of layoffs.
Subscriptions do seem to continue to go _up_, too. The proof of the productivity pudding is lower prices, which means the proof of all this AI hype is not so much Millennium Prizes being solved than subscriptions actually getting cheaper. If AI is already having a huge effect, inflation should be going down... if AI will have the effects OpenAI et al are currently selling, prices should plumet. I mean, I'm waiting...
At one point reading this I thought of Molly's Soliloquy: "...frseeeeeeeefronnnng train somewhere whistling the strength those engines have in them like big giants and the water rolling all over and out of them all sides like the end of Loves old sweeeetsonnnng the poor men that have to be out all the night from their wives and families in those roasting engines stifling it was today Im glad I burned the half of those old Freemans and Photo Bits leaving things like that lying about hes getting very careless...". You probably don't want to recall Joyce if you want to get people to understand what you're doing.
Fun story: at my previous aaaawful company CC was discovered as a thing to care about at about the same time as PMs and managers were encouraged to land code changes using the _then_ quite terrible AI tooling (this was a year or two ago). Cue an avalanche of completely unreviewable diffs.
I think this is a counter (a cynical, scary counter to be sure) to the charge that OpenAI/Anthropic etc are unsustainable and will run out of money and it's all going to fall down. These companies have amazing, unprecedented power.
I can't say it doesn't make sense. Who still loves Facebook? Older people. Who loves chatbots? Old people too. Not _just_ old people of course, but this genuinely might be the first new tech I've seen which has been so easily and quickly welcomed by those a generation or two older than me.
Why hasn't AI already solved the chip shortage? I guess we need to spend more on AI. More money to the AI barons so they can solve cancer and also employment.
Lots of "performance review boilerplate, I don't want to say anything _bad_ about this person but there's nothing particularly good I can say" energy there.
Someone decided that this feedback was worth highlighting:
"Bob demonstrated a level of intelligence and contextual understanding that goes beyond anything I've seen in other tools. Bob goes beyond anything I've seen in other tools."
Skipping past the implication that the author believes that the only things that matter are the things he personally cares about, he doesn't seem to realise that we use the word "subjective" to mean two different things. We use it to mean _not objective_, and we use it to mean _internal_. In "subjective experience" we use the internal meaning of the word. Subjective experience is a fact, it is indeed the only fact that we each can know for 100% certain, all other facts are inference and induction and guesswork, but you cannot deny that you have subjective experience. It is _objectively true_ that I have subjective experience. The author wants to contend that it is _subjectively_ true that I have subjective experience.
To take an example, I don't know whether my cat has subjective experience, and I think it is impossible to know for certain. Nevertheless, there is a fact of the matter, it is either true or false, it is not a matter of my care for the animal, it is not in the eye of the beholder, it is an innate property that a system might or might not have.
And civilizations do fall. The bronze age civilizations did collapse. There was something dark about the dark ages. There is no law of nature which says that things will be okay, and plenty of examples where things have fallen apart.
Just to add to this, if AI is as epochal a change as its boosters say (and I am open to that argument), then surely it must have the potential for awful consequences, in proportion to its potential for good.
This is kind of damning, isn't it? "Similar or slightly higher" for spending the _same time_ means it's not, in fact, helping. At the same time as being extremely damaging to a significant number of students who, of course, use the AI to cheat. Because everything about it makes cheating easy.
I do wonder about intent. Meta has spent 20 years paying its engineers and others vast amounts of money to Increase Engagement, and punishes those who fail to find ways to do so (over the past few years, by firing them). And it's worked! Engagement has increased greatly over the years, Meta survived the effective end of Old social media (you know, the stuff from your friends) and thrives in the new world of infinite content. Was the intent to _addict_ people? It doesn't have to be, to create a system people have become addicted to. Even if the harm is not intended, does that mean it cannot be regulated? Surely not! Let's ban infinite scroll for a start. The question of whether to punish Meta is quite separate from the question of how to reduce the harms of its products.
Either people are being really, really silly (which cannot be discounted), or the potential reward is so high as to override whatever qualms a normal person must have. Is that it? Is this people looking at a solid career at Apple or sudden millions from OpenAI, and thinking the risk is worth it somehow? Or, more darkly, is it people thinking _this is my only chance and I have to take it_? Or is it trickle-down lawlessness?
I think this is the thing. Companies have always been forced rather against their immediate interests into the cost of hiring junior engineers. As soon as the idea gained traction that this cost was unnecessary, companies stopped. So: we had the post-COVID tech slump, and then immediately after, by horrible coincidence for prospective junior engineers, LLMs turned out to be good at coding. Result: a missing generation of engineers, and a giant headache in about 15 years time. But which tech exec could possibly care about what happens in 15 years?
I'm about to get a junior engineer to work with at my Big Tech company. This used to be normal, it's now slightly extraordinary. I've not worked with a junior engineer in literally years. Even typing this, I think: this must be hyperbole, it's true though.
It's the Silicon Valley circular-reasoning meritocracy in action: those with the billions deserve to have the billions because they have managed to get the billions. Every extra dollar only goes to prove how little they need to listen to those with less.
Kind of serious question: in tech circles is the Manhattan project generally seen as a _good_ thing, these days? Why use it as the example and not, say, Apollo? "We're working really hard so we can build things with the power to kill you all" is such weird messaging.
Hmm, also saying the scale is 0 to 5 is... something. In my experience, which was a while ago, no one cares about SEV 3, and I only ever saw SEV 4 used as a placeholder or TODO list. Never came across a SEV 5 in the world. It's really "SEV 2 on a scale of 0 to 3".
I'm sure it's about power. I am also sure that having that much wealth, that little accountability, being surrounded by people who've a vested interest in telling you you're a genius, would make anyone go a little insane. Call it Roman Emperor syndrome. Not many people can be Marcus Aurelius.
There's being fed up with something and there's fomenting civil war. The huge wave of immigration, which has since subsided, happened under the Tories.
One solution is not to advance anything of course. I'm not even joking, is there going to be a successor to React? I suspect not, with the vast amount of training data for React now, it's going to look silly to move to something else with less support. What is the last new popular programming language, rust? Will there be another one? I suspect not. Same reasoning. The irony of all this AI acceleration talk is it'll work best if we don't accelerate the underlying tech at all.