groundtruthdev

7 ms·

1.
by groundtruthdev 7mo ago
Fair point and that’s exactly why Airbus has been eating Boeing’s lunch. When engineering culture takes a back seat to cost, schedule, and optics, outcomes diverge fast. In safety-critical systems, rigor isn’t optional, it’s the competitive
2.
by groundtruthdev 7mo ago
Would you feel comfortable flying on an airplane where the programmers don’t care about secure code, correctness, or the ability to reason about and optimize algorithms—where “good enough” is the philosophy? Most people intuitively say no,
3.
by groundtruthdev 7mo ago
This defense is missing the point. Yes, humans aren’t remote-driving the cars, and yes, most miles are autonomous. But the relevant question isn’t how often a human intervenes — it’s how many humans must be continuously available for the sy
4.
by groundtruthdev 7mo ago
In this hypothetical world where AI reliably generates software, large and small software providers alike are out of luck. Companies will go straight to LLMs or open-source models, fine-tune them for their needs, and run them on in-house ha
5.
by groundtruthdev 7mo ago
Short answer no. In a world where AI reliably generates software, companies will bypass SaaS vendors, even the large ones, and go straight to the best LLM providers for tailored solutions. Brand, lock-in, and capital won’t save traditional
6.
by groundtruthdev 7mo ago
If AI really makes software cheap and fast, the future isn’t generic SaaS clones competing in hours. Companies will just generate their own hyper-custom internal versions, Salesforce clones tailored to their exact workflows. Brand and lock-
7.
by groundtruthdev 7mo ago
Yeah, extraordinary claims need some internal consistency before external evangelism. I’d expect the same from other companies whose CEOs make these kinds of claims, like Nvidia and Anthropic.
8.
by groundtruthdev 7mo ago
To the article’s author: what is the timeline for removing human engineers from your own organization?