> So yes, use AI. Don't nitpick the costs and benefits. The world is headed this way; if you want to develop software for a living and afford to eat, you need to be too.
It's really saddening to see software engineers throw out all critical thinking and innovation out the window to behave like sheep and follow the trend line. The industry was trailblazed by people that refused to do just that and the same is going to be true in the future.
> right now its a race to automate work, especially back office. companies already are seeing 10M+ in savings and revenue growth
What? Where? Citations please. We're seeing big companies massively stall in all traditional sectors except AI which is a irrational market built off hype.
ai companies know how to use the tools internally, not surprising
there are no citations yet because this is going on behind closed doors, if you know you know. we'll start seeing it in the financials of companies soon. alternatively you can look at the revenue growth of applied ai companies
Companies learned one weird trick, that's why you don't see job opening collapse. Most of the job openings listed are fake. Companies aren't hiring despite showing signals that they are; you can ask any engineer that's been laid off over the past year and they'll tell you the same story of how bad the job market is right now.
Reading the post made me quite sad because it felt like the author didn't understand the actual purpose of a hackathon and just shit out some AI crap tied to a raspberry pi and pat themselves on their back.
At least game jams still carry on that general spirit and the people that try to put together stuff with AI immediately make it obvious.
> Which is even sillier when you think about it, because if it's useless, then you really shouldn't care: the markets will eventually find out that it's useless, and everything will go back to normal
And in that period where the markets are irrational people are losing their jobs, hardware is being priced out of consumer markets and the rich are trying to embed themselves so hard that we get to pay for it when the market corrects itself. I think your take is highly indicative that you live in a shrinking bubble unaffected by those things.
Sadly while I agree with this attitude, from experience they will ever get to the point of acknowledging help is needed. Eventually they'll find a way to blame the workers again to justify laying them off and double downing on doing things the stupid way.
I don't think you understand why the author did this on a fundamental level. Sometimes it isn't explicitly about getting the outcome directly, it's about putting in the work to understand how you get there.
The article says that the author wanted to have an analysis done, but ruled out the option of a human doing it. He did not rule out using a multimodal LLM. It's possible that he just is unaware that multimodal LLMs are capable of doing an analysis. Considering the approach wasn't mentioned in the article one can guess that the author just didn't know it was possible. But there is no way to know for sure.
> If anything AI will be used to correct all the crappy human made code that is still being pushed due to the vanity of coders still pretending that they are better than AI at coding.
What funny nonsense. This is like saying AI will replace artists because it's better than your average artist.
Software engineering is as much an artform as it is infrastructure. AI cannot approximate even a poor engineer because it cannot capture the full context of a problem to be solved.
There is an artistic element to coding but claiming it is some sort of unquantifiable abstract mystical thing is silly. There are many metrics, objective and easily measured, that AI can match humans on in code generation.
None of those 'objective' metrics matter as long as the outcomes is incredibly visible and damaging. You say that AI is matching humans, but what people see is apps getting worse with more bugs than ever, an inability to reach anyone that actually gives a shit and second order effects on things like general computing.
It doesn't help that most of these 'metrics' are literally invented by and ran by the companies that benefit the most from said metrics.
I've seen this shit at major companies before, because the c-suite loves to invent metrics that make their product look good even if it ignores reality.
The median != the frontier. When looking at all the crappy vibe coded apps and saying they’re worse than the normal expectations of pre-AI applications, you’re comparing some default app-generator model (Gemini flash or worse) with the security integrity of enterprise apps (which still have security flaws). This is very different from comparing Opus 4.8 to the median coder, given the same context, parameters, access to tools, time, and feedback loops.
The frontier has been on the horizon for the past 5 years, where people say it's going to replace all engineers and we'll be in some sort of software heaven. Until when and IF we reach that point, the only thing that matters are the negative outcomes we currently experience as a result.
This article is hot garbage going over some of the 'principals' they list.
> This is a more general version of the healthcare point. AI will generate so many new ideas and hypotheses, including for drugs and medical devices, but not only. Become a tester. Test new battery designs, new educational techniques, or new methods of conserving valued wildlife.
Like what the hell does this passage even mean? We're six years into the increasing AI psychosis among companies and you would think if it was good for ideas and hypothesis we would see them by now. Instead what we see is something incredibly incestuous as AI nonsense infects every sector whether or not it's actually needed. And in the realm where creativity flourishes I can't think of a single game that actively benefitted from the usage of AI.
It's really saddening to see software engineers throw out all critical thinking and innovation out the window to behave like sheep and follow the trend line. The industry was trailblazed by people that refused to do just that and the same is going to be true in the future.
reply