You'd have to be well dear not to notice it. And our ears are more than good enough to home in on it to the point of seeing it. I recommend an ig nobel.
honestly makes me want to learn haskell and find a company that focuses on it.
I'm so tired (so incredibly tired) of all the ai slop I've seen, just in my company, and the ai-bros frothing at the mouth about the next terminal to run their agents and how it's making them "so much faster"; even a comment yesterday (with supporting sentiment) that having to do something without ai was tediously slow.
The problem is that the _generation_ part is fast. So people only remember that. They don't remember the time taken to craft a good prompt that gets to a reasonable output. They don't remember the time wasted in PR over swathes of comments. They don't remember the days I spent having to unfuck the project from aigen code that literally broke checkout. They got their little dopamine hit, and moved on.
I use ai - claude, to be specific - as an "interactive stack-overflow", to ask questions about the code, and to help me learn how to be better. I still firmly believe that the biggest problem with ai-gen adoption is that the people who think they're getting the most out of it are the same people who don't understand what it output, so are unable to push back when it does something stupid.
I have to push back _regularly_. Like at least 30-50% of the time.
The tools are only useful (imo) when an expert can verify the results - even in cases where I wasn't sure of the actual workings of the code (eg getting Claude to use the typescript ast to do clever linting or type-file generation), I can verify via tests - the box can remain black if I can verify the output. The average vibe-coder verifies nothing directly - it launches, so it's good, right? Oh, how did our checkout screen end up infinitely putting-and-polling at two endpoints? No problem - give it to a real engineer to solve it.
I'm with Linus on this - ai is a _tool_. And much like how we wouldn't allow shit code from any other tool (ide, compiler, linter, whatever) to sift into prod, we should be on top of what we're using this tool for - not putting the onus on someone else to clean up the garbage. AI codegen is most dangerous in the hands of people who have no idea what it's doing - they're firmly stuck in the initial Dunning-Krueger peak, unaware of just what a mess they've made.
Not to mention duplication - literally just had to ask someone to refactor so that we're not sending two components which are 90% the same to the client, but rather pulling out the 90% core into a mixin. Code is so over-commented, it simply _has_ to be ai-gen. But I also can't call it out, because now it's dev egos in the mix too.
The one golden hope I'm leaning on is that eventually everything will implode, people will see the light, and go back to using a tool as a tool, instead of just trusting the bag of words to do it right. In particular, I've learned that ai is to be incorporated in some ingestion pipeline where the final result has financial implications. That's going to be hilarious when it makes a proper goof.
My tests? Sure. Co-workers? Unlikely. Historical co-workers who are no longer with us except in the code they left? Not a chance.
But when I have to work in an area, the first thing I look for is coverage, and if it's not there, I add "fixing tests" to enforce the existing behavior before making changes so I'll know when I broke something.
another blog to avoid then; the intentionality of actually writing from scratch is kinda part of the point.
the other point is that "more data" doesn't necessarily mean "more better" - I'd rather have 1 well-thought-out, curated article on something that matters than 10 insipid pieces compiled by ai from links.
I think the "giving back to humanity" angle is naive - Altman has walked back on so many promises, and the obvious answer is that he wants government backing to be too large to fail and the preferred choice.
Makes it way easier for nefarious persons to dupe others with lookalike sites mimicking, eg, google login. People should always check exactly where there's sending login credentials to, or risk account takeover.
I would have read more, but just a few seconds on that site made my eyes bleed. Good grief - both light-colored and low contrast. It's as if the author doesn't want to be read.
And the answer to the actual question posed by the article is simple: money. Big companies made huge bank by offloading risk onto people. Let's not pretend it was anything else.
it's now or never - become McDonaldsLand or stay America.
PS: please get rid of your president - the whole world, which didn't think much of you before, thinks even less of you now, because you elected a trouble-maker racist moron who is so thirsty for attention he'll literally fuck the entire world to get it.
pity it's like "who's line is it anyway?" - the points are meaningless and really don't matter
First, we money is a delusion we all agree to share - it has no intrinsic value whatsoever
Second, stock is an even more-removed delusion based on what people _think_ a company might be worth to buy - a value that changes at the drop of a hat (look at the recent massive dips, eg nvidia)
Third, and this is probably the real bummer - all this delusion is just going to make Smelly Tusk even more insufferable. Yay.