5 ms·

I think there's a coherent argument lurking in there, but the author hasn't refined it enough. Here's my attempt. The industrial revolution seemed like the end

by strken 1mo ago

I think there's a coherent argument lurking in there, but the author hasn't refined it enough. Here's my attempt. The industrial revolution seemed like the end of the artisan as an important man in his community, the death of good taste, and an apocalypse for professions like furniture makers. And yet, do you remember the Aeron chair, darling of the dotcom era startup? The Eames chair, that wood veneer conversation piece which every real estate agent chooses when staging an apartment? In an era of mass production, taste moves up the market, but it never quite goes away. Where does that leave our taste, dear reader? I am not sure. What I do know is that, just as the Aeron chair could not exist in a world without mass production, so too will there be tasteful software which cannot exist in a world without LLMs. I hope you're as excited as I am to build it. I have no idea whether this was the actual intent, but it's where the disparate little facts seem like they might lead.

anupamk 1mo ago
> In an era of mass production, taste moves up the market, but it never quite goes away. I agree with the points in your version, and the part above is the “meat and potatoes” for me. I too am unsure about how much did the author intend to say something similar. The main area where I disagree with the original post is this apparent fusing of subjective/personal taste driven value and market rewards driven value. To summarize/clarify my view using the Aeron and Eames chair examples from your version 1. I agree that someone had to pursue their taste/vision for those products even when they could’ve “gotten away” with producing something mass produced and mediocre. And that pursuing their taste/vision likely became more feasible once the technology allowed them to focus on the “taste” while taking care of the boilerplate. 2. But, I will also add that the market actually saw value in Aeron and Eames chairs and rewarded their creators. It would’ve been incongruent for those creators to assert that their chairs were superior merely because they chose to pursue their taste/vision.

by strken 1mo ago

anupamk 1mo ago

> In an era of mass production, taste moves up the market, but it never quite goes away. I agree with the points in your version, and the part above is the “meat and potatoes” for me. I too am unsure about how much did the author intend to say something similar. The main area where I disagree with the original post is this apparent fusing of subjective/personal taste driven value and market rewards driven value. To summarize/clarify my view using the Aeron and Eames chair examples from your version 1. I agree that someone had to pursue their taste/vision for those products even when they could’ve “gotten away” with producing something mass produced and mediocre. And that pursuing their taste/vision likely became more feasible once the technology allowed them to focus on the “taste” while taking care of the boilerplate. 2. But, I will also add that the market actually saw value in Aeron and Eames chairs and rewarded their creators. It would’ve been incongruent for those creators to assert that their chairs were superior merely because they chose to pursue their taste/vision.