Over the last 20 years the economy has become dysfunctional. It no longer really resembles a free market; monopolies have established barriers to entry everywhere. And the biggest investors are awash with helicopter money that's been doled out for favors by the political class.
So those investors have tons of cash to burn and surprisingly few opportunities. Even within Silicon Valley/VC there are surprisingly few who seem to really understand the fundamental economics of software. Or perhaps those economics just aren't that important when you have billions of dollars on hand and cash is obviously not going to get you a return. Any whisper of possible exponential growth is worth throwing money at. Crypto? Why not. AI? Why not. Datacenters? Why not. Tulips? Why not.
This is by all definitions an empire in decline. Everything is broken or fake. Everyone is afraid to do what needs to be done. Power forbids it. So we're all just waiting for the other shoe to drop. Our secret police aren't as bad as the late stage USSR's yet, but hold Uncle Sam's beer...
(That's not a recommendation to try and time the nadir, by the way, as it could easily be 50 years away.)
I feel like my point is being over extrapolated a bit. All I was saying is that people in 2020 believed AI companies had much more of a moat then they actually do - that other companies would struggle to obtain enough data (y’know, downloading the internet to train models wasn’t legal back then) or resources to compete
It started way before the last 20 years, the past 40 years have created the conditions for this to happen.
Overfinancialisation of the economy while removing safeguards to keep markets functional, like anti-trust enforcement, are the main forces behind this erosion. Through finance the focus of companies is completely shifted away from producing good products and services, and into how to extract more paper wealth from existing structures to the detriment of products.
Not enforcing anti-trust and letting behemoths to form which cannot be competed against since with their amount of capital they can either buy their competition outright or just price dump for long enough to make competition non-viable.
It's the failure of neoliberalism, and that agenda has been pushed into Western countries since the 1980s-1990s, it made enormous wealth for the few at the top while eroding whole societies, economically and socially, it's all dysfunctional.
I feel like my point is being over extrapolated a bit. All I was saying is that people in 2020 believed AI companies had much more of a moat then they actually do - that other companies would struggle to obtain enough data (y’know, downloading the internet to train models wasn’t legal back then) or resources to compete
I replied to the extrapolation, not to your comment directly, I think your point might be more fitting under that comment than mine, I just drilled down from the points above mine.
The initial growth of the internet was a boom bust cycle, and as you see the internet is still here. This is more about the economic paradigm that is being used to grow a technology versus the economic paradigm the technologies rate of growth can support over time.
Just to give some rough numbers in the past 5 years the amount of GPU compute installed in FLOPS is somewhere over 5 times all the CPU flops that have ever existed.
This has nothing to do with AI being good or bad or being able to produce things and economic value. It is by far the largest and fastest growth of any technology ever and we have zero clue about the economic stability of this grand experiment we're performing.
The internet is a much more appropriate comparison than crypto or tulips, which bring no or negligible value.
Some differences to the market at that time seems to be that during the dotcom bubble, many of the companies had little to no revenue.
Leading AI labs already generate enormous revenue. The investments into capacity are needed to address the current demand.
The situation seems somewhat less speculative.
That said, I cannot predict how AI capabilities will develop and how demand will respond.
Should capabilities plateau hard and soon, maybe the demand will not be there for the compute investments.
If it does not, and instead AI applications in robotics, science, and self driving expand, chances seem reasonably good that the demand will be there, no?
And as for the economic stability, much of the investment comes from existing giants like Microsoft, Alphabet, Amazon, and Meta, who have the necessary cash flow.
These companies are less likely to collapse than some of the ones during the dotcom bubble.
Eh, I'd say it's closer to something like internet + tulips.
It's the total amount of money in the economy that's been invested toward a potential outcome. AI represents the largest amount of money, and largest fractional part of the economy invested ever.
Because of this AI could be the biggest economic boon ever, yet still not recover the full amount invested. This will have deep economic impacts that affect everyone and everything. At this point AI must achieve all its stated economic impacts or there will still be a huge economic crash that kills off any company that is over invested and cannot make a profit.
Worse, the many of the perceived economic impacts of AI are not for humans like you or I, but the huge companies you listed. Even if they economically win, everyone else made out of meat could still lose.
They say history doesn't repeat, but it does rhyme. This, at least to me, sounds like a mixtape of "internet" + "tulips" + "1920s financial world leading to global political instability".
Every potential outcome I see occurring pushes us closer to further instability, even if the economics on it work out on paper.
Out of this number how much of this goes to payroll that goes to humans versus how much of this goes to non-human infrastructure costs. The numbers suggest this is anywhere from 60 to 90%, with 70% being a reasonable average figure. Just under a trillion dollars paid directly to humans would disappear if AI somehow captured all of this market.
Moreso the AI industry needs to capture these gains very fast or they will be crushed by interest payments on the massive debts they've accrued.
>ven though Amodei hopes to cure most major disease in the next 5-10 years
The average development time for medicine is 10 to 15 years before a single dollar is earned from said medicine. AI will shave very little off that as human testing and our stupidly complex bodies introduce all kinds of problems. Furthermore running head long into blindly using AI medicine is how you produce X risks from super intelligence AI.
The speed at which AI has to develop in which to get profitability is the biggest risk, a potentially catastrophic risk at that.
You can theorize all you like, and many people like yourself are expecting to see GDP growth pick up as a result of AI, maybe if only because of the boom in datacenter construction etc (regardless of whether AI ends up actually boosting the economy), BUT ...
The reality is that so far there has been no sign of GDP growth picking up. It is basically flat at 2.5% +/- over the last few years.
In a similar vein one might have expected that the internet (think of all the e-commerce and efficiencies!) might have shifted GDP growth into a higher gear, but it did not, although in that case there was at least a significant boost in the 1996-2000 "dot com" era when the build out was happening (then to be followed by the crash and all the unused dark fiber etc).
So, maybe the hoped-for AI boom will be just as much of a dud (as it appears to be so far) as the internet boom. New day, different tools, same growth.
It's perhaps odd that we're not even seeing datacenter/etc build out register on GDP, but perhaps the scale of it is not as large as the internet build out?
>but perhaps the scale of it is not as large as the internet build out?
In the past 5 years 5 times as much GPU compute capacity has been installed as total CPU capacity that has ever existed. When it comes to capital intensity the growth of AI has been one of, if not the largest capital expenditure for a class of project in this short of time frame. Things like the Manhattan project which was absolutely monstrous expense at the time is dwarfed by this.
Of course measuring GDP growth is difficult when you have an idiot in chief trying to destroy the global economy with the dumbest set of actions contrived by a human ever. Disentangling this factors will take a lot of work on someones part.
I can certainly understand why YC would fund an idea like this, and it's interesting to read about, but yeah the horizon for it working is surely very long if ever.
A more appropriate scope would be "can any element of a business at all be handled autonomously by an agent in the long run?" because I would buy that product, but I can't think of one.
Andon's real world experiments are a lot more interesting than the simulations IMO. They ran a retail outlet which has burned through 97% of the money in its bank account. A cafe which is well into a downward slide. Some online radio stations which have listener numbers you can count on one hand.
Seems a little insane that they opened expensive physical businesses like retail and a cafe without doing anything digital successfully first. Surely a dropshipping business is easier and cheaper to test out than a brick and mortar clothing store!
So if nothing else, they have a looooong way to go on distribution. I would argue that distribution in particular might be unsolvable with an agent. If your agent can do it why can't a thousand others? At which point the cost of customer acquisition will be driven up by thousands of robo-competitors until it's no longer viable. The robots mutate the problem and the closest real analogy ends up being perfect competition where no one has any profits.
I've always wondered about these two. Dunwoody is a retired Army general. Decker insofar as I can tell is one of the suits who ran Yahoo into the ground. As a platform technology company why would you want these people on your board? I could see having the right sort of government suit on it, maybe. I couldn't see "turned Yahoo into an irrelevant hellhole of ads" as relevant experience.
> Decker insofar as I can tell is one of the suits who ran Yahoo into the ground.
I don't think that's really right, but it's hard to tell. In my mind, as someone who was there from 2004-2011, things were going ok while she was there. The Microsoft acquisition would have been nice from a $ point of view, and I think they could have been convinced to give all the employeed an Xbox 360, but Microsoft would have smothered the brand and its products... It's possible the acquisition would have been held up in anti-trust for a long time and a large period of uncertainty.
IMHO the running into the ground really started under Carol Bartz with the ads and search deal with Microsoft whereby Bing was supposed to take over everything. But performance in terms of latency, quality, and $/search was worse than when Yahoo was doing it and the ads and search teams at Yahoo didn't shrink as expected, because the work didn't shrink as expected. Not surprisingly, when you drop revenue and don't drop costs, financial performance does not improve.
Partnering with Google would have made more financial sense, but that wasn't an option because of anti-trust... Probably should have accepted the acquisition and accepted fate... partnering with Microsoft later was a bad choice, maybe they could have backed out once the numbers were clear.
> As a platform technology company why would you want these people on your board?
Investors tell you to put them on the board and you do it. The worst mistake WordPress made was taking investment from private equity and assorted Wall Street types.
Let's leave the diagnoses to the doctors please. The guy was public about being under a lot of stress and that's fine and salient to acknowledge. But it's misleading to use medical terminology unless you're actually his doctor and have evaluated him following the protocols of your profession.
Which we know you are not -- if you were -- you would be bound by patient confidentiality, and not posting a diagnosis here.
So just say his job performance was suffering and he appeared to be stressed. Don't medicalize it.
I am "evaluating" him as someone who feels he has come unglued in a similarly severe but less public way and recognises a fellow traveller. I'm fully entitled to say this, am I not? It's just my opinion.
I am not "medicalising" it — not least because the medical profession does not recognise burnout as mental illness (because it gets it backward and assumes it is an occupational health issue).
I am saying he is, to me, evidently mentally ill in the way I feel I have been mentally ill. I wouldn't accept a doctor telling me my problems are work stress.
"His job performance was suffering and he appeared to be stressed" is IMO classic American-influenced minimisation of middle-aged male mental ill-health. I would be shocked if what is going on is in any meaningful way limited to his "job performance" and that apart from the job everything else is going fine.
I think these responses show how much stigma is attached to mental illness, that people abhor someone placing the label on someone else. Despite the fact that, for anyone familiar with it themselves or in loved ones, it's a lot more prevalent and in many more shades and gradients than probably most people realize.
I am only entreating you to be accurate about the terminology used. Due to its historical use by psychologists the term mental illness is generally thought to be synonymous with mental disorder, which is the modern term that refers to a specific illness classified in the DSM-IV which psychiatrists may diagnose. There are only so many of them, and they are defined, and they are diagnosed by name by doctors. To me it is not a matter of sensitivity, and certainly not one of underplaying, but of precision. If you want to diagnose Matt you need to tell us which DSM-IV disorder he is afflicted by and what your authority for the diagnosis is. It sounds like that was not your intent so it would be more clear if you referred to his psychological distress, or sure, "has come unglued"/"lost his mind," or just said he seemed mentally unwell. None of these imply that you're a doctor making a formal diagnosis. They also do not imply that the problem is somehow lessened -- you just aren't mapping it to a definition in the DSM (which ultimately implies some amount of endorsement for treatment, including specific therapies and drugs depending on what you diagnosed). There are unfortunately people out there who will read your comment and take it to mean that a doctor actually diagnosed Matt.
For goodness’ sake, I didn’t “diagnose” him or try to.
If I were to get more specific than “mentally ill” that would be a diagnosis.
But “mentally ill” is not a diagnosis and it wasn’t an attempt at one.
I mean it colloquially based on my own really similar, serious experiences with coming quite unglued due to burnout that eventually rendered me unable to work but before that made me act irrationally against my own interests in a way that has caused me negative consequences.
I consider myself to have been mentally ill. I think it looked like that to people I scared and shocked.
But this wouldn’t be a “diagnosis” either, not least because the healthcare industry doesn’t want to admit or address that it goes further than mere occupational health “thing”.
So would you please fucking stop imagining I did something more specific so you can call me out for doing it.
> There are unfortunately people out there who will read your comment and take it to mean that a doctor actually diagnosed Matt.
Dude, if you use this term, someone out there is going to associate it with "Mullenweg has a diagnosed illness for which therapy or drugs may be appropriate."
You may not like this, but it's a fact. This fact is just a dictionary lookup away.
Please calm your outrage about the world as it is, and accept that there is an established use for this term.
> I am saying he is, to me, evidently mentally ill in the way I feel I have been mentally ill. I wouldn't accept a doctor telling me my problems are work stress.
I'd find it far less acceptable if a doctor told me work stress was mental illness.
You don't know anything about this person, and your case seems to rest on "I know because I've been through it" which assumes your experience is the same as a total stranger's.
I don't know why I get so much hate for saying this and people find it so hard to accept, but I'll say it again.
The term for a formal disease of the mind, as used by the medical practice, is currently "mental disorder."
Not too long ago, the term doctors used was "mental illness."
Therefore when you say someone has a mental illness, you have to think about how the entire medical profession has used that term in the past, and how that may influence perceptions. It is a term that potentially brings in connotations that the individual has been diagnosed with a specific disorder in the DSM-V and this may be leading to doctor prescribed drugs, therapies, different outcomes in court cases, and many other things.
I'm sure many people including OP don't intend to imply that when they use the term. And this is also why you would never call "work stress" a mental illness. Work stress is cause that can absolutely make you unhealthy. It may or may not be exacerbating a mental disorder which a doctor may or may not have formally diagnosed yet. We can have compassion for somebody who's suffering without jumping to the conclusion that they've been diagnosed with a DSM-V disorder. As non-doctors, we should!
These distinctions matter. It's merely paying respect to the facts on the ground, as well as the person in question when we describe their situation accurately.
Using Work/Codex I'm continually amazed at how far my experience is from the popular AI memes like "this will destroy all jobs" and "AI is useless and is about to crash and take the economy with it."
My experience feels like I'm in an Iron Man movie. I get up in the morning, I turn on the voice chat mode, and while I'm making my coffee I ask it to highlight any important emails I received overnight. I then babble to it a bit with my initial reactions to those emails, and tell it to draft responses based on my thoughts, which it does.
By the time I start work I've got draft emails to review and I've had time to think about the ideas a bit more, the upshot is that I'll get a day's worth of email done in 20 minutes and probably make better decisions than I would have otherwise. By no means does this eliminate my job, just make me better at it and more productive. I can get into the day's deep work sooner now.
Going into that two-way voice mode with all your Connectors available is a big part of the gain here, sometimes you just want to walk and talk through something. It seems you can't get both of those simultaneously in the mobile app yet and when you can that'll be a huge gain, like go take a walk in the garden, talk through your thoughts, the appropriate drafts and other artifacts are ready for you to finalize when you return to your desk. This stuff is honestly space age.
I don't have much experience with Claude so if it also has that two way voice mode and can use its version of Connectors on mobile while that's turned on, I should give it another shot.
Not to come across as dismissive of your job, but if a "day's worth of email" can be done in 20 minutes now, it to me mostly highlights that it was mostly busy-work with little value and could have had another process? Good that AI improved upon the old process, though.
Assuming your first sentence is accurate, I would disagree with the second. Making a bad process more efficient is a negative, not a positive, we should instead strive to improve the situation. The correct way to handle “busy-work with little value” should be to understand what lead to that point, fix it, then eliminate what’s unnecessary, not spend more resources (money, time, sanity) on making useless work be done faster. That still wastes resources and stresses the system, which makes it worse by hiding problems that will bite you in the future.
For example, say you deal with 100 emails a day. 90 of those are pointless busy-work and 10 are meaningful. It takes you all day. Now you begin using an LLM. You still have to separate the 90 from the 10 but then have the LLM reply with the 90 and leave the 10 for yourself because they are important and you have to make sure they’re done right. It now takes you a fraction of the day, so what happens is you start taking on more and more email¹. You’re now at 300 a day, with 270 busy-work and 30 meaningful (same ratio as before). Then one day your LLM breaks (ran out of tokens; a model was retired; bad connection; your powerful local machine broke down) and now you’re flooded by email and don’t even have time to separate the bad from the good, let alone prioritise and reply. If you had instead fixed the busy-work problem, you’d have been fine.
¹ Let’s be real: Work expands to fill the allotted time (Parkinson's Law). Those selling increases in productivity always promise more free time but what always happens is more work.
> The correct way to handle “busy-work with little value” should be to understand what lead to that point, fix it, then eliminate what’s unnecessary, not spend more resources (money, time, sanity) on making useless work be done faster.
Good luck trying to bring this through your typical bigco process management. Either your initiative dies, having gotten caught in a spider web of red tape, or it succeeds but now half your colleagues are angry at you to the point there's a non-zero chance of you getting beaten up, because now they have to do actual work or leave the niche they have made themselves comfortable coasting in for 20 years.
Office politics is even worse than actual politics.
“You won’t have luck implementing a sensible solution on a dysfunctional system” is an evergreen answer which doesn’t offer any insight. It’s a cop-out and discourages any attempts at improving anything.
Not everyone works for big corporations, and of those who do some work in departments with sensible bosses where they can make some change.
As an exaggerated example, we could also say “one way to resolve issues in a community is to gather the people involved and have them talk through their issues in a room with an experienced impartial mediator to help guide the discussion” and then have someone reply “good luck trying that at a maximum security prison where inmates are constantly confined to solitary and beaten by the officers”. Yeah, no shit. You have to adapt your solutions to your environment, but that’s no reason to dismiss a general starting concept.
Having a name for these "thought-killing statements" or "thought-terminating cliches" has helped me recognize them in all sorts of settings in my life. Corporate, social, religious, the list goes on.
It makes sense as humans that we do many things to simplify things or even eliminate them in order to save energy and avoid stress, and we should be careful to recognize a need for balance while still working towards some greater goal, purpose, or good.
Even so, much like kerning, once you are aware of it, it is painfully difficult to ignore.
Half of her organization has just a calendar filled with meetings.
And without meeting the organization would find that you only really need a third of the people, and you would even likely increase the overall output.
Many time wastes are just designed to make people busy, not productive.
It's kinda my point, though, that it's busy "manager" work if it really can be answered by an LLM. So yeah, getting answer from someone like Elon is exactly as useful as just asking the LLM myself.
I mean, I can't stop people from emailing me. I get over a hundred non-spam, non-mailing-list emails on some days. I'm not able to respond to most of them. I'm often not expected to, I'm just being copied in as a FYI. The AI is able to assess subject and intent well enough to determine what should receive my limited time, and through the voice interface it converts "making coffee" time into "composing email" time. I do read every email that's sent to me eventually, but it can take several weeks in some cases. I don't let AI reply to anything for me, but I'm happy to have it propose a draft.
I'm using mu4e as my MUA and one the things that it offers are actions (something similar in mutt is macro) where you can map a keybind to some code that do something to the current message or the set of selected messages. This is generally the reason that a lot of mailing list recipients (high volume of messages) use those software, where you can refile messages very quickly leaving the more thoughtful reply things for later.
I think something concerning is that your email has become a sluth and for people wanting to contact you and not your AI agent how do they break through that 2FA step
I feel like in near future the meme about "it's all just chatbots emailing each other" will actually be true. I wonder when I will receive my first AI generated email and will I bother to respond to it at all
It's already here. My company received an AI generated bug report the other day, and my AI employee ("R. Axiom") noticed, analyzed it, prepared a fix, tested it and replied to it. I wasn't involved, although I will review, merge and release the fix.
Surely passing untrusted input to a agent with execution capabilities and also possibility to reply to the same author, couldn't possibly be used for anything negative? Parent is probably using a firewall so it's A-OK :thumbs_up:
> Surely passing untrusted input to a agent with execution capabilities
Oh hey, I know this one! It’s humans and a phishing test, they’ll click on all the links and enter information without checking the domain properly!
Personally, I’d like systems that aren’t open to attack and can be depended upon. But it seems like nowadays NOTHING can be trusted - not OSes (recent Qubes OS exploit, not even mentioning others), not any software written in languages without memory safety, not even the ones with (Log4j comes to mind), not the packages in many package managers, not other humans and sure as hell not the token prediction machines. What a world.
We all probably live with a 0.XX% chance of getting pwned any given day.
> But it seems like nowadays NOTHING can be trusted - not OSes (recent Qubes OS exploit, not even mentioning others),
Clearly you feel alarmed, but it's important to base these "alarm" feelings on actual evidence and real concrete proof of something being bad. You clearly don't have a proper understanding of the exploit, so please take a moment to re-read what actually happened and how it would be exploited in practice, particularly the "the scope of this attack is smaller than it sounds" comment chain: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49496918
Overall, I agree with you though, and it's a healthy perspective to be safer rather than sorrier, so living with the assumption that getting pwned any day is a non-zero chance/risk is probably the best approach and what I personally do too.
We'll see how it goes, but the product in question (Conveyor) is a downloadable tool that's got deliberately unobfuscated bytecode in it, with lots of detailed logging. AI is perfectly capable of reverse engineering it and in fact this bug report contained such a reversing. So even if someone tricks it into revealing source code or similar, they won't get anything that isn't already obtainable via other methods. This isn't a SaaS where security through obscurity might conceivably help, or where the codebase might contain credentials by mistake.
It's a developer tool and this level of trust helps customers debug their own problems quickly. If someone wants to break the law, they'll get a legal answer, but it's never been a problem.
The bot in question cannot write to master though, only open up pull requests from its own isolated repository.
It's a bet on modern models being more resistant to confusion attacks than they were before. The harness setup also makes it very clear to the model where input comes from. This might be a bad bet, but if it's not, then it's helpful for customers to get help right away.
Correct! I think we need a naming convention that lets us quickly understand if we're talking to a human or a machine. The R. prefix (meaning Robot) is unobtrusive and familiar to anyone who has encountered Asimov's stories. It will also generalize to humanoid LLM/VLA powered actual robots in future.
When do you get to enjoy your morning? And when does your family get to enjoy time with you? You're working when you wake up, working while you make coffee, working while you walk through the garden. Is that really space age? It sounds more like TikTok doomscrolling but for techies.
IMO these tools introduce faux productivity while taking away your free time and making you work more.
It's not the techs fault. This person chose to use it this way. They could have also carved out 20 mins at the start of their workday to do the same thing
I disagree. They could've carved out 20 minutes at the start of their workday to do the same thing, but that's explicitly at the start of their workday – not during their free time. I don't know anything about this person, but I know that if I were using these tools the way they do, it would mean the complete obliteration of what little semblance of work/life balance that I have left.
As someone who hasn't used Work or Codex but has used Claude Code and Pi a lot, may you describe how to set this up? I'm interested enough to try this out
You'll need a subscription ($20 tier should be fine) and then need to add "connectors" to your services (Gmail, 365, etc) so that it can access them. Then you just use the Claude Cowork (Or ChatGPT equivalent) tabs and chat with it.
It might be hidden somewhere or they’re doing A/B testing. Cowork was part of the left sidebar for Claude but when I was looking for it, it was gone. I had to do a search query to find it.
I consider myself fairly AI native. I was absolutely blown away by how frictionless it felt the other day interfacing with codex using the experimental headless app server on my VPS and using voice mode on my phone connected to it while I had my browser open having a conversation about making edits to my website.
The site uses Astro to hot load edits and so the exceptional Live voice model would use some filler words in response to me asking for an edit and before I knew it, the page had refreshed with the fix.
When people talk about things like OpenClaw and Hermes being a new operating system paradigm this is the sort of UX that comes to mind.
And simply conversing with it with my phone in my pocket and air pods on its the closest I've felt to a live conversation with AI ever.
Kudos to the voice mode and Live voice model teams.
If you use Android, honestly try Fdroid. It's great. I mean there are obviously huge gaps, you're not going to find banking apps, and there's going to be less polish in a lot of cases. BUT NONE OF THE APPS ARE EVIL.
Fdroid harbors the paradise we imagined in the early days where we just had these little computers in our pockets and didn't have to worry that everything on them was drowning in ads, scams and surveillance.
So if I do think I might want or need an app I immediately go and check on Fdroid. I can install apps from there without fear. If Fdroid doesn't have what I need, most likely I'm just tapping out. I won't use my phone. I barely use it these days when I'm not on the go anyway.
On Android, especially the most recent versions, the archive functionality for apps has been a lifesaver. It basically packs apps into a specific format, keeps their entire state, and stores it on the disk. This also completely stops the app from running in the background and any other functionality that we don't need.
When we need to access the app again, we just have to restore it, which actually downloads the app and puts the app data back into it. It brings us back to exactly where we were before.
I do this to a lot of my apps these days, and it works very well. When we look at it, apps are nothing but a logged-in state for services that makes it easy to access them. On a typical web browser, you would have to keep logging in every now and then. Apps have a more persistent logged-in session that sometimes lasts forever as well.
This sounds like another one in those class of arguments that are essentially "We can't let users accidentally harm themselves on the devices they own." While I appreciate ergonomics and sensible defaults, ultimately I don't need you, Google or anyone else telling me I can't do something with my device because it's too dangerous to me. I mean I have a huge F U for anyone who tells me that quite frankly, just as I would if they said it about my car or my kitchen knife. I cleared the age of consent decades ago, I will use what I bought and I will accept responsibility for all of the outcomes. These little poindexter dictator nerds of IT who think they get to control everything about what I own can F right off. I applaud and will participate in any class action lawsuit against them and hope for the maximum penalties to be inflicted upon them.
> If my choices are to look at ads or leave Facebook, I'll leave
I'm reminded of a simple observation about negotiations: the one who's willing to walk away is usually the one with the upper hand in the negotiation.
I think this is a choice we need to be considering on every level right now. What technology are you willing to walk away from? Fundamentally from my perspective the operating system and browser are *user agents,* they are pieces of software I permit to exist on the device I own because they do my bidding. The major manufacturers have perverted these user agents to a previously unfathomable degree under the presumption that you won't walk away and they can just keep on boiling the frog.
I'll walk away, in fact I feel like the more I walk away the better my life becomes. Switching to Linux a decade ago was more than worth the headaches considering what colleagues using Windows now have to put up with. Staying on Firefox + uBlock has been worth the headache vs. what people without a reliable ad blocker have had to put up with. Turning off my phone completely for a growing portion of the day has totally been worth it for peace of mind and freedom of distraction.
At this stage my relationship with technology seems to revolve heavily around the principle "how do I minimize exposure to technology produced by the largest American crime syndicates (Google, Microsoft, Meta etc)." This may be a radical or absolutist view but frankly my life is way better for it
If the agent's changes are terrible, the first thing I would look at is not the agent itself, but the context: spec, scope and prompting.
We generate an AI branch immediately every time a spec is completed. It then gets a brief review in our team meetings when the spec is introduced. We just take a few minutes to walk through what the AI did and take notes on what was insane and what was a good approach.
#1, this informs us about the actual quality of the spec, if the model did something wrong it will often become evident that the reason was an omission, ambiguity or contradiction in the spec.
#2, it saves the developer a lot of time, because in ~3 minutes we've usually established that at least half the code the model wrote was acceptable for use. Dev tasks look more like "Here's the implementation in concept, but pieces X, Y and Z will require your expertise to formulate a cleaner approach." And since AI tends to do a cleaner job at smaller scoped problems, it tends to be a great help to the dev at this stage too.
If anything I feel this process increases quality, not reduces it. It certainly speeds things up. Most major challenges and problems are immediately exposed by the model's proposed implementation. We don't have to wait for the developer's first cut to discover them. They go into the task knowing exactly what to focus on, and having the uncontroversial parts of their eventual PR essentially "pre-approved." The result is where we would have had to do multiple iterations of a feature, they often come back at the very next meeting having totally nailed it.
I was referring to what I observe working with various teams and open source projects using AI, not necessarily best practices or what a curated workflow can produce.
Even before LLMs, most teams don't bother cleaning up. The best you'll see is feature branch getting squashed on merge.
AI is not really a factor here. Teams/orgs that did not care before still won't, only 10x more.
Same, on the golden throne is where 98% of my phone time is being spent, the other 2% is having to hold up the phone towards my hear to do that annoying "talk to another human being" thing. Otherwise during a normal day I barely touch my phone.
Over the last 20 years the economy has become dysfunctional. It no longer really resembles a free market; monopolies have established barriers to entry everywhere. And the biggest investors are awash with helicopter money that's been doled out for favors by the political class.
So those investors have tons of cash to burn and surprisingly few opportunities. Even within Silicon Valley/VC there are surprisingly few who seem to really understand the fundamental economics of software. Or perhaps those economics just aren't that important when you have billions of dollars on hand and cash is obviously not going to get you a return. Any whisper of possible exponential growth is worth throwing money at. Crypto? Why not. AI? Why not. Datacenters? Why not. Tulips? Why not.
This is by all definitions an empire in decline. Everything is broken or fake. Everyone is afraid to do what needs to be done. Power forbids it. So we're all just waiting for the other shoe to drop. Our secret police aren't as bad as the late stage USSR's yet, but hold Uncle Sam's beer...
(That's not a recommendation to try and time the nadir, by the way, as it could easily be 50 years away.)
reply