I had someone submit a PR that was 3000 lines of shell scripts. Totally useless crap. I tried repeatedly asking him why he made particular choices and it was so painfully obvious that he had absolutely no idea and was just inventing bullshit answers. I would rather he have just said "I don't know, Claude added that", then tell obvious lies to my face.
A better way to put it is that these things do have value to the customer, the customer just doesn't have a way to understand how the work you're doing provides value because it's the part of the product you don't see. If you clean up technical debt, improve test coverage, improve your deployment systems, etc, it doesn't change the immediate customer experience in a meaningful way, but it does allow you to deliver the changes that customers do see faster and with fewer risks.
This quote makes it seem like the work is self-indulgent, and I have seen that happen sometimes, but it's not half of what we do.
I worked for a lean startup that built a very expensive hardware product. The company kept the team as small as possible and took a ship fast and iterate approach. They shipped hardware that had numerous design and manufacturing defects and failure rates were very high, over 50% required replacement after 2.5 years. For a while the company was relatively generous with out-of-warranty replacements, which helped mitigate the issue, but that became too expensive. So customers spent thousands of dollars on a hardware product that was likely to fail in the year after the warranty expired. The company was also very reluctant to spend on customer service and QA, but spent very generously on marketing.
I'm curious how you would think about this situation from the lean startup perspective. With hardware products, if you don't do lots of initial testing, the scale of problems might not become apparent for years. You can't just fix a problem with a software patch.
I tried to address this in The Lean Startup and also in the follow-up book The Startup Way. Cutting corners, making crap does not help you test your thesis. What's needed is not to ape the techniques and tactics that work in another industry like software, but to really think from first principles about what will create sustained iteration speed even in a hardware context. In The Startup Way, in particular, I give a bunch of examples, including a bunch from old school manufacturing contexts that have applied these techniques successfully.
I wonder why we as engineers aren't protesting AI in the same way that artists and people in film and television are. This post should instill the same terror that visual artists feel.
If you're a more senior person in tech, this post is effectively saying that a large portion of your skillset is about to become completely worthless. This goes beyond the skills involved in writing the code. Everything that you've learned over years about how to determine whether code is good or bad, and what practices make an engineering team effective is not just obsolete, it's fundamentally counter-productive because it assumes a slow, human-centric process that requires you to actually review and understand the code. Even your ability to mentor junior engineers is now obsolete, because all that experience you've built up is now worthless to them.
If this is the approach the industry takes, particularly when combined with a lack of interest in quality from the business (and let's face it, consumers have shown us that they're happy to pay for cheap crap), it's hard to see much of a future for software engineers. You don't need thousands of people with deep technical expertise, you need a handful of manager-types, who will focus on defining product and business requirements and configuring how the AI gets enough context to implement the requirements.
Maybe, if we're extremely lucky, there's so much demand for software that total employment doesn't fall off a cliff, but the nature of the work will change so much that many older, more expensive engineers will become unemployable. Those who remain will have to accept that the skills they spend decades developing are now worthless, that younger engineers no longer respect or listen to them, that the business no longer sees them as experts worthy of respect, but old fogies who grew up in a different world.
Joe Biden liked to say that a job is more than just a paycheck, it's part of your identity and your sense of self-worth. We're all very used to a certain level of respect (and commensurate remuneration). If you don't think that's true, compare how a software engineer is treated to how a warehouse worker is treated. What happens when we lose that?
>a large portion of your skillset is about to become completely worthless
I'm not convinced of that.
I watched a video of an architect using AI to create architectural drawings. It became very clear to me that he has a lot of skills and terminology that helped him produce something very specific, in a few minutes. I've been working on some home improvement stuff including a studio/shed and I've struggled to produce even something simple (currently trying to get a conversation packet on the roof trusses to take the the permit department to get started). Even with my high school architecture class.
After watching that I wonder how much of what I'm doing with AI that looks easy is because I hae a deep technical knowledge, plus 3 years of heavy work with AI.
This is the case now - I can explain to the AI that I want to re-factor a component to support different implementations using a strategy pattern, and I can get a similar outcome to what I would have written, just implemented a bit faster. My expertise brings value.
But that's not what this specific article is describing. The world this article is describing is one where you describe the business requirements, and you don't think about how it's implemented. You don't write the code, you don't review the code, you don't test the code. You give the AI business requirements and you give it access to sources of context (slack, meeting notes, etc). Every place where the human would act as a gate reduces throughput, so it should be eliminated through building harnesses and providing context.
What they're doing here is the equivalent of taking a factory where you have 2 process engineers and 100 operators, and replacing all the operators with robots. They want to automate the whole process of making the software and just leave the part that figures out how to make the automation work effectively.
In this world, the average software company doesn't need people who know how to write good software, because writing, reviewing, maintaining, and testing the software will be entirely automated. There will be a small number of people at companies like OpenAI that need to know how to write good software in order to supervise training the models, and there will be a small number of people at the software companies who have expertise in setting up the automation.
Just because I'm not typing "strcat(); strcpy(); sprintf()" doesn't mean I'm not thinking about problems. I'm still doing critical thinking all over my stack, and I don't see that going away. I'm just doing different thinking.
There are people who think, and AI just isn't going to change that. There are people who don't think, and they've existed long before AI. Back in the 90s when I worked at the phone company, man, I worked with some people who didn't do a lick of work (along with some really sharp people).
What is that protest going to get us? We'll convince or force business leaders to not use a cheaper/better tool and protect our jobs? And nobody else in the world is going to pivot either? And our companies will remain competitive?
Software engineers have always adapted to new technologies. New languages, frameworks, native apps, browser apps etc. So far this doesn't seem to be close to completely removing us from the loop.
If you are smart, educated, and can adapt, you'll figure it out. The economy has to find some stable equilibrium and it's not a zero sum game. Everyone in the economy getting a paycheck is also a consumer. With no consumers there is no business. The companies who are using AI and become more productive can do more things that before were not profitable but now are. Some of the people who are getting laid off are going to start new businesses and hire people. These things always cycle, and they basically have to.
It's the other way around, unfortunately. The senior engineers will still be useful for architecture and infrastructure considerations, as well as guiding the agents. It's the junior engineers that get nailed, because there's little incentive to hire one when a LLM does a better job immediately and costs less.
That's true now. But in the world of this article, it's also the senior engineers that get nailed. In the world of this article, all code is like what machine code or bytecode is now - it's designed to be used by the machine, not the human, because the expectation is that humans will rarely, if ever, touch it.
Individual voices aren't strong enough to drown the marketing machine.
Artists and writers are unionized, why they have a more powerful collective voice.
Second, there are enough peole for which their jobs are very well paid and too cozy to dare to rock the boat.
The economy and job market isn't so hot either at the moment for people to quickly be able to jump ship.
Can you even be sure that you find a tech company that isn't jumping head first onto the AI hype train? Even politicians can't have enough of AI in their mouth.
I for one am not protesting because I know that this is bullshit marketing nonsense. Look at reliability metrics of OpenAI, they’re terrible. Everyone knew a long way ahead that it’s a scam, now they’re cranking up pricing and trying to rug pull. There will be a lot of developers who will come out very well once the stock tanks. That’s my two cents
You probably mean USAGM (US Agency for Global Media) and its affiliated programs (Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, etc) rather than USAID.
USAID was a humanitarian aid agency that focused on programs like famine relief, disaster response, and medical aid in some of the poorest countries on Earth.
It is how these agencies operate. They mask malevolent activity behind good front (“think of the children“, “age verification“ -> censorship/total surveillance. Medical aid -> overthrowing governments).
Four Horsemen of the Infocalypse is what you're speaking of. Not wrong about there being a facade, IMF trap you with wells, but this distinguishes the boogeymen used to give up civil liberties.
It's similar to enshitification drawing attention to the decay cycle. These get used constantly with a good example being KYC is needed to stop money laundering.
Well it should be unconstitutional for any law or government ordinance to demand compliance with any standards that are pay-to-copy.
Arguably the government should publish a blessed magnet link of a blessed torrent file per each field of standard. Probably with the padding files used to make each PDF individually hash-checkable.
If nothing else it's a practical way of declaring what standard version is the legally significant one. It's usable without actually sharing any of the PDFs anyways.
At least for international standards and a lot of academic research, a case can be made that the former should be freely available simply because everyone should have access to them and the latter is often enough funded by taxpayer money.
Same exact thing applies to physical libraries. If they were attempted in the last 50 years, they too would be illegal. And all books could be confiscated, building be sold at police auction, and the people who run it would be in prison.
It was only because libraries were made 120 years ago BY billionaires of their time (Carnegie, etc), and was a a way for those billionaires to sanitize their history of abuse by philanthropy.
On the reverse, we have Annas Archive, Library Genesis, Sci-Hub, Archive.org and others. Made by average non-billionaire humans sharing knowledge in the largest free libraries. Except they're demonized and criminalized.
There really isnt a difference at all with physical in person library, and an online free library. And using a phone camera, is also trivial to copy a book within a span of 10 minutes. You dont even need to borrow it - just sit in a carousel and scan scan scan.
Sure, they were initially bought BY the billionaire philanthropists, or were from their private collections. Books were bought on the open or used markets to initially fill these libraries.
And some libraries weren't free. They charged for a library card as a subscription. This was before they were bought into city/state governments. So technically they were making money on loaning books, but it was fed back in to sustain (without tax dollars). Carnegie came in and offered to build and populate books in a library IF the local govt would staff and maintain.
Now, copyright owners have also completely lost the narrative. A book can survive years in a library with only moderate use. But that single book can cost the government-funded library 10x the cost of the real book. And if you want to see a real scam, look at the DRM infested online libraries. Cost the same 10x but they then turn around and say "this internet book can ONLY be rented out 26 times (2 week rental over a year) before you have to buy another virtual copy".
> There really isnt a difference at all with physical in person library, and an online free library.
You know, aside from the blindingly obvious issues of scale and reach (a library might have two copies of a book and you might have to wait weeks for your turn). So tired of thoughtless nonsense to justify people who want free shit but don't want to, like, feel bad about it. Look, you even "cleverly" worked in a swipe at "billionaires", as if that has any fucking relevance at all! Brilliant.
I was inspired by technology when I was young, but not anymore. When I was young it felt like the tech industry was about empowering human beings - Steve Jobs liked to say that a computer was like a bicycle for the mind. Today it feels like the tech industry is about wonton destruction ("move fast and break things") for the purposes of making a tiny number of people fantastically wealthy.
I'm aware that Steve Jobs was a jerk, but I cannot imagine him complaining about how he had to miss some great parties so he could spend the weekend taking food and medicine away from the world's poorest children (as Elon Musk did during his DOGE phase). The ethos was just completely different.
This Inside Climate News article is a little clearer.
> TCEQ began its investigation after workers for Nueces County Drainage District No. 2, which presides over the ditch area, found an unfamiliar pipe stretched across the district’s easement, expelling black liquid into the ditch
> The permit didn’t allow Tesla to use private or public property to transport the wastewater. Under the permit, it was Tesla’s responsibility to acquire whatever property rights were required to use the discharge route, the TCEQ permit states.
So one issue is that while they may have had a permit to dump wastewater, they didn't have a right to build a pipe on land controlled by the drainage district. Tesla, not TCEQ, needed to notify the drainage district because Tesla was the one building on land controlled by that district.
I don't find it exciting at all. I just feel anxiety about my career and my place in the world. I have a set of skills that I've developed over many years. I care about what I create. I consider it a craft. When I use my skills to solve a hard problem, I feel good about myself. When the AI does the work for me, I don't get that sense of accomplishment. I am seeing my value evaporate before my eyes.
I hate this stuff and I wish it had never been invented.
You might want to rethink this, think of this as the opportunity of a lifetime, the beginning of a new era, the same as the early Internet, where you do have the chance to set yourself for life now, this window is getting shorter and shorter, but you can't deny that you do have the potential NOW to thrive or start multiple businesses without much capital. Think also that the best thing in the end, is probably to build great things, regardless on how we build them, making the world progress.
Just a year ago, Elon Musk was gleefully destroying the US government agency that provides food and medicine for many of the poorest, most desperate people on earth. He was literally tweeting about missing out on great parties to put USAID into the "wood chipper".
The tech overlords don't even want to spend a minuscule percentage of the federal budget helping starving people, even when it benefits the US. They are not going to give us a post-scarcity society.
reply