> Satya goes on to argue that AI has the potential to restore productivity growth. And Satya has a big investment he needs paid off. Had Satya's statements com

> Satya goes on to argue that AI has the potential to restore productivity growth. And Satya has a big investment he needs paid off. Had Satya's statements come from an economist or other it might be a little more believable. > It is symptomatic of an engineer who doesn’t understand the underlying problem and tries to pattern match to get at the solution. Pattern matching is absolutely the correct thing to do for most situations because it is rare that anything new is necessary. Almost all of engineering is a reflection of business processes and business has the same mode: a new business process is most of the time pieces of old processes rearranged. > But when the abstraction isn’t tethered to empirical results or anything measurable and falsifiable, the abstraction is just an obfuscation, a cargo cult ritual. That's not a problem with the abstraction that's a problem with observability. Abstractions are insanely useful both pragmatically and otherwise. O11y is often the last thing considered, if it's even implemented at all. I'll also go on to say that it's interesting that the stagnation problem is framed in such a way. Software is a tool, not a product. It's going to take a product or class of products to fundamentally change the direction of growth and innovation. For all we know AI might even be it, contrary to the author's contrary.