17 comments

[ 2.5 ms ] story [ 42.6 ms ] thread
It's disappointing how so many people blame AI for our problems. I see this pattern over and over; people never blame the socio-economic system and blame technology instead. Technological improvement is the only thing which allows us to survive the social, cultural and moral decline that we've been experiencing. People blame tech because it allows the system to be highly inefficient and still hold together. But if people blame tech, root issues will not be addressed.
It’s funny reading this parallel world that some portion of people have constructed for themselves.

It has been three years and these tools can do a considerable portion of my day to day work. Salvage the wreckage? Unfortunately I think that many people’s jobs are essentially in the “Coyote running off a cliff but not realizing it yet” phase or soon to be.

I mostly do normal React crap, ostensibly the easiest thing for these tools to do, and these tools cannot do a considerable portion of my work. Yes I've used the latest model. Yes I've used the latest agentic IDE. Yes I've tweaked my prompts and added repository rule files. Yes I've done this approximately every three months for the last two years. This shit does not work. Nobody ever posts proof of it working well in any <great project>.

I am at the point where if I read something from a software developer like, "these tools can do a considerable portion of my day to day work", I have to just assume that person's day to day work was garbage. And this is not terribly surprising, because a lot of software developers I have personally worked with did produce mostly garbage. Some amount of those people are surely using AI and posting about it, and that explains what we continually see online. Sorry to any offended.

> Start with monopolies: tech companies are gigantic and they don’t compete, they just take over whole sectors, either on their own or in cartels.

>Google and Meta control the ad market. Google and Apple control the mobile market,

“Tech companies are monopolies”, proceeds to describe how tech companies compete with each other.

There's a fundamental disconnect: OP refers to senior engineers being replaced with AI, whereas the evidence and logical reasoning points much more to junior engineers being replaced by AI. And that premise seems like a quite plausible one...
>OP refers to senior engineers being replaced with AI, whereas the evidence and logical reasoning points much more to junior engineers being replaced by AI.

If industry cared about future seniors, they'd invest in juniors. But that's not what's happening. AI will effectively replace seniors in 20 years with the current trajectory. Whether or not that replacement is adequate or not is the bigger question.

It’s so strange to see people accusing tech companies of using AI to concentrate power and wealth when thus far, AI has almost entirely been all consumer surplus. You have crazily high competition in the industry that allows you the consumer to use SOTA models for free, or even run them yourself.

My prediction is that this will keep going all the way to the AGI stage. Someone will release (or leak) an AGI capable model that’s able to design AI chips, as well as the Fabs needed to build them, as well as robots to build and operate the Fabs and robot factories and raw material mines and refineries.

> when thus far, AI has almost entirely been all consumer surplus.

Tell that to the 2025 job numbers. Who do you think benefits from a millipn+ layoffs? The consumers? The new grads who can't even get their career started?

They're so obviously going to fail, but in a good way. The idea is that they were going to get the world addicted then raise the prices, but the reality is that there's going to be a race for the bottom in pricing because none of them are significantly better than the others. They don't own anything, it's just math; they can be undercut by an OSS bomb from China at any given moment.

Even worse, they've bet against the math not advancing. If it gets significantly more power-efficient, which literally could happen tomorrow if the right paper goes up on arxiv, maybe a 10 year old laptop could give "good enough" results. All those data centers are now trash and your companies are now worth a negative trillion dollars.

I think all of these factors are completely independent of whether AI works or not, or how well it works. Personally, I don't care if it replaces programmers: get another job. I just have experienced it, and it is at this point mediocre.

Of course I am not using the bleeding edge, and I am not privy to the top secret insider stuff which may well be orders of magnitude better. But if they've got it, why would they keep it a secret when people are desperate to give them money? If they're hiding it, it's something that they know that somebody could analyze and knock off, and then it's a race for the bottom again.

In a race for the bottom, we all win. Except the people and economies who bet their lives on it being a race to the top.

>Personally, I don't care if it replaces programmers: get another job.

In this economy? Restarting in a world that doesn't want to train is expensive at best and suicide at worst.

How ironic would it be if the AI productivity miracle ends up being negative growth because of the cost of cleaning up of slop?
Honestly I think it already is.

A lot of people who talk about massive gains seem to forget about code review.

Then in a company someone who has to review is is f*cked because that code is much more complex and takes much longer to review.

The race to the bottom of software quality accelerates using AI to generate software. Based on my experience using Claude for software development.
"I'm a science-fiction writer - my job is to think of a dozen alternatives before breakfast."

The author should have a team of programmers trying to implement some of these alternatives

I'm confident "new method of collecting data, performing surveillance and providing ad services" would not be one of them

Programmers are generally not good sources of novel ideas

They tend to focus on copying ("implementing") the ideas of others

Today's "AI", designed by programmers, IMO (other opinions may differ), is an automated form of copying

The whole AGI industry is like one of those projects that claims "90% finished" from the time of the first demo, then for the next N years, all the way up until the project is eventually canceled.

Yeah we can spew out millions of lines of unmaintainable slop code! Now we can even write a slop unusable browser!

All this shit looks like progress, but it's all really a cover for lack of progress. And now we've got the entire economy as a bet on it.

None of this is to say there's nothing useful coming out of the industry. I use it productively for a ton of things. But, the reverse centaur thing is a great analogy. The money getting ploughed into it is assuming reverse centaur will be the final outcome, not a set of useful productivity tools. Once investors start to realize that all we're going to get out of it is the latter, we'll be in for a world of hurt.

Granted, one nice thing about the AI wave is that I bet it'll be able to keep slinging new and idiotic slop for decades that'll keep successfully unburdening investors from their money, because, "hey look, it's 90% finished!" Who knows, maybe that's the point.