throw1235435

7 ms·

1.
by throw1235435 7mo ago
I don't think you are wrong. I find many tech people/founders excited by AI don't understand end game economics in general. Like kids excited by the new toy starting their new startup they don't see the end game if this
2.
by throw1235435 7mo ago
Changed their opinion/public stance completely sometimes only months apart. For example "I love programming" to "if you aren't with AI you are behind" within maybe only 6 months time. Its almost like anyone wit
3.
by throw1235435 7mo ago
Generally from a financial planning standpoint 35-50 is typically the "grinding years" where mortgage, family, and other life commitments means that typically your career investment needs to pay off to make it through. In some way
4.
by throw1235435 7mo ago
Software, and most STEM based jobs, have a lot of determinism and verifiability + some way to reduce the cost of failure so brute force iteration can cover up the remaining. There is often "a correct answer". They've also ye
5.
by throw1235435 7mo ago
What's more interesting is how the big names in our industry, the ones who already made their money as you say, have turned quickly since the end of 2025. I think even the most old school names can see that the writing is on the wall n
6.
by throw1235435 7mo ago
A lot of startups/small businesses are like "with AI we can build more than ever". The problem is so can everyone else and capitalism rewards scarcity not value. The bar for startups and small software business has risen quit
7.
by throw1235435 8mo ago
The language is still ahead of C#, and still receiving features and keeping up by and large with the .NET ecosystem. Tbh I don't get the sheer negativity; the same thing could be said for Gleam or any other functional language these da
8.
by throw1235435 8mo ago
> They are laughing at them. Yes but not for the reason you think - more that those are the future customers. If you look closely most are pivoting slowly away from software and shifting more to AI + hardware. The slow layoffs and pivoti
9.
by throw1235435 8mo ago
There's a lot of this forum in exactly that position. The fear is real; there is a real risk this AI destroys families and people's lives in the disruption.
10.
by throw1235435 8mo ago
This is what will occur - the bad scenario that is. Labor and its knowledge distributes (hard to contain knowledge), capital centralises and compounds. Always been that way. With AI there will be a a tension between the two of course. The r
11.
by throw1235435 8mo ago
Sure; I absolutely agree and more to the point SWE's and their ideologies compared to other professions have meant they are the first on the chopping block. But what do you tell those people; that they no longer matter? Do they still m
12.
by throw1235435 8mo ago
Software dev's training the model with their code making themselves obsolete is encouraged not banned. Claude code making itself obsolete is banned.
13.
by throw1235435 8mo ago
If that is true; then all the commentary around software people having jobs still due to "taste" and other nice words is just that. Commentary. In the end the higher level stuff still needs someone to learn it (e.g. learning ASX2
14.
by throw1235435 8mo ago
Not entirely disagreeing with your point but I think they've mostly been forced to pivot recently for their own sakes; they will never say it though. As much as they may seem eager the most public people tend to also be better at outsi
15.
by throw1235435 9mo ago
Not sure. As software becomes a commodity I can see the "old school" like tech slowing down (e.g. programming languages, frameworks frontend and backend, etc). The need for a better programming language is less now since LLM'
16.
by throw1235435 9mo ago
Maybe. There the cost of failure again is low. Its easier to destroy than to create. Economic disruption to workers will take a bit longer I think. Don't get me wrong; I hope that we do see it in physical work as well. There is more va
17.
by throw1235435 9mo ago
The question is how rapid the adoption is. The price of failure in the real world is much higher ($$$, environmental, physical risks) vs just "rebuild/regenerate" in the digital realm.
18.
by throw1235435 9mo ago
> But otherwise I think it's harmful to society, even if beneficial to the individuals I disagree a little in that stability/predictability to people also adds some benefit to society - constant disruption/change for the s
19.
by throw1235435 9mo ago
How many pay? And out of that how many are willing to pay the amount to at least cover the inference costs (not loss leading?) Outside the verifiable domains I think the impact is more assistance/augmentation than outright disruption (
20.
by throw1235435 9mo ago
Not really. I used to think more general with the first generation of LLM's but given all progress since o1 is RL based I'm thinking most disruption will happen in open productive domains and not closed domains. Speaking to people
21.
by throw1235435 9mo ago
I also believe this - I think it will probably just disrupt software engineering and any other digital medium with mass internet publication (i.e. things RLVR can use). For the short term future it seems to need a lot of data to train on, a
22.
by throw1235435 9mo ago
Tbh this whole AI thing is probably a negative ROI but it will pay off. Even if the debt is written off the AI enhancements that this whole misallocation of capital created are now "sunk" and are here to stay - the assets and tech
23.
by throw1235435 9mo ago
Sure - I agree with that, and I agree its good for society but as you state probably not as good for the SWE who has to work harder for the same which was my point and I think you agree. Other professions have done what you have stated (i.e
24.
by throw1235435 9mo ago
I'm talking about what I perceive to be the median salary/conditions with big tech being only a part of that. My point is more that I remember back in that period good salaries could be had outside big tech too even in the boring
25.
by throw1235435 9mo ago
There's also the effect of different models. Until the most recent models, especially for concise algorithms, I felt it was still easier to sometimes do it myself (i.e. a good algo can be concise/more concise than a lossy prompt)
26.
by throw1235435 9mo ago
Indeed it did; I remember those times. All else being equal I still think SWE salaries on average would of been higher if we kept it like that given basic economics - there would of been a lot less people capable of doing it but the high RO
27.
by throw1235435 9mo ago
Sure. I just know in most companies (seeing the numbers on projects in a number of them across industries now) funding projects which give time for people to think, ponder, publish white papers of new techniques is rare and economically not
28.
by throw1235435 9mo ago
> Expertise and craft and specialized knowledge can become irrelevant in a heartbeat, so your meaning and joy and purpose should be in higher principles. My meaning could be in higher purposes; however I still need a job to be enable&#x2
29.
by throw1235435 9mo ago
Jevons paradox I doubt applies to software sadly for SWE's; or at least not in the way they hope it does. That paradox implies that there are software projects on the shelf that have a decent return on investment (ROI) but aren't
30.
by throw1235435 9mo ago
If we had done what you say (distribute wealth more evenly between people/corporations) more to the point I don't know if AI would of progressed as it has - companies would of been more selective with their investment money and pr

More ›