I've been seeing too much "I've been coding for decades and what I've always done has be reduced to telling AI to do it for me."
and not nearly enough "I've been coding for decades and recently worked hard for months with AI's help to make something I would have never considered possible before."
Much easier to complain that you are bored than to step back up to high-effort with your new fancy tools.
I am mostly in agreement. And I suspect there are many folks that’re trying to ship something AI-assisted that’s sufficient to get to income security first, and who would use success there as a stepping stone to greater things.
The problem is, why even produce something greater now when someone is just going to clone it with AI? And moreover, what differentiates software now will no longer be the care put into it but marketing and trends. The highly commercialized nature of software means that there's not much point now in doing anything except getting there first and exiting with a decent nest egg.
> And moreover, what differentiates software now will no longer be the care put into it but marketing and trends. The highly commercialized nature of software means that there's not much point now in doing anything except getting there first and exiting with a decent nest egg.
That happened at least 20 years ago. How many recent "this product did so great because of the care of software engineering, and now the creator is comfortable for the rest of their life without risk of it being copied" success stories are there compared to "this product chased some trends VCs were nuts about with a slapdash MVP and the founders took out 8 figures from their later fundraising rounds, but then the business sputtered out"?
I think there's an angle with AI tools where business-minded people will have a better chance of doing interesting things now than in the recent past, because you could potentially tailor much more deeply to individual customers with reasonable economics than in the past. There are fields where there's room for a garden of solutions from different small-team vendors appropriate for different use cases instead of a one-size-fits-all SaaS winner-take-all type market in the past. We could kill the old line about SAP around needing to change your business to accommodate SAP instead of customize SAP to accommodate your existing workflow.
But if you aren't business-minded at all there are likely less places that will need to hire as many careful maintainers or novel-software-writers, which obviously is a huge kick in the teeth to a lot of people.
It seems to me that you are comparing two kinds of business-minded people. Some want to sell tailored products to individual customers, while others want to sell one-size-fits-all products to many customers.
You could also focus on problems. What are the actual problems you want to solve? Can you use software to solve them? Do you still need to buy that software from other companies, or is it now feasible to have sufficient in-house expertise to develop it yourself?
I love solving problems. But I don't enjoy sharing my solutions with the way the world is today. My comment was directed towards the "sharing" aspect, not the making aspect. I still solve problems on my own and learn on my own but I'm not a fan of the way the world has become.
UBI or a living wage for part-time workers in-line with what was expected would be possible from productivity gains over the past half-century would do that. You just have to get the "hard workers" who are happy to race to the bottom on their way to the top, and undercut/throw under the bus everyone else in the process.
Can we please, for once, stop trying to figure out how to "get ahead" of each other, and instead figure out how to build a decent and dignified floor for as many people as possible? Because I imagine that, "Ultimate power in the hands of anyone with enough VRAM to run GTAVI," works better when people are in a culture of looking out for each other, versus a culture of clawing their way to one of the limited lifeboat spots (under the mistaken impression that there ARE lifeboats, when, again, everyone potentially has the power to blow up the lifeboats).
A UBI will never work, the Soviets tried effectively that and it fails miserably.
You end up with the government deciding how much bread each person needs, how much the bread will cost, how much to pay a person so they can pay the defined price for the allocated amount of bread, etc.
Either utopian claims of an AI and robot-powered future are right and we don't need money because you can just have what you want, or money and resources will still be scarce and we will continue to compete amongst ourselves for resources.
2) America in 2026 is not the USSR in the 20th century, so even if they did, our circumstances are very different from theirs.
3) UBI was only the first suggestion; you completely failed to address the other and then jumped to a black-and-white conclusion.
The general thrust of my proposition was that people shouldn't have to submit to an artificial system of manufactured competition and unnecessary "productivity" in order to access goods that are objectively abundant. When people realize that and make the necessary compromises, they won't have to worry about shipping useless AI-assisted slop for "income security" and can focus on using AI to build consequential and useful software.
Please do not get bogged down in whatever kneejerk anti-UBI thought-loop your misaligned amygdala is screaming at you.
1) you'd have to expand on your refutation here. The soviets absolutely did decide top down how much bread each person deserved and how much it cost. They used that type of data to help decide how much grain to have farmers grow, where and when to ship it for bread production, and in part how much to pay people so they could buy their allocation of bread. Not directly a UBI, but functionally very similar with the caveat being they forced people to work in predefined jobs for a set pay rate.
2) I didn't say the US is the USSR. I pointed to a clear example where a UBI-like structure was tried and failed. Feel free to call out specific differences that may help it work better today in the US, I'm genuinely curious despite my skeptism.
3) I can respond to the others as well, but that isn't necessary to have an interesting debate or discussion on any one topic. If one was required to respond to all raised ideas they could try to shut down all conversation by threading together a long list of hard to discuss topics, avoiding responses to any one topic.
I do agree people can avoid having to submit to AI or ML systems though. We ultimately all make our decisions, some more impactful than others, and if we end up in a dystopian future with no jobs and AIs/robots in charge of the world we made that bed for ourselves.
I'm not bogged down in any kneejerk reactions and I'm not parroting what I've heard air bags saying elsewhere. I've read up on the topic, the history of the USSR, and read Marx writings (well the translations, I speak some Dutch but no German). We may disagree, but my views aren't uneducated reactions.
1) You are describing something that is not UBI, and calling it UBI anyway. A rationing system that is not fungible and that varies allocation is not universal, and not income as capitalism knows it. The Soviet planned economy was categorically not UBI. Full stop.
2) >I pointed to a clear example where a UBI-like structure was tried and failed.
You did not.
3) That's not applicable here. Why did you respond to the UBI issue only?
>I do agree people can avoid having to submit to AI or ML systems though.
I didn't speak to this at all. The "artificial system of manufactured competition and unnecessary 'productivity'" is independent of AI and ML and has existed for several decades.
>my views aren't uneducated reactions.
See 1.
My conclusion is that you actually aren't interested in a conversation. You haven't responded earnestly or considerately to anything in my initial post except the portion suggesting UBI, which you dismissed with a faulty presence.
Here is my suggestion: talk about something else from that post. Anything else. Do not revisit the UBI topic.
The only reason the Soviets didn't have a true UBI is because they realised they still needed people to work and they wouldn't if you gave them what they needed for free. That's why I said they had what was effectively a UBI, they decided what people needed or were entitled to and created a system that would give them only that. The fact that they forced people to work is an implementation detail that we'd likely run into in the US today as well, we couldn't afford for the government to cut checks and no one work.
I did respond earnestly, whether you accept it or if I'm explaining myself poorly. You have yet to propose how a UBI would actually work, or pointed to an example of it ever having worked in the past. Socialism and Marxism have been tried, the don't work. And yes, UBI is an idea that goes back to Marx's writings.
You asked me to respond to more than just the UBI concept raised.
I 100% agree people need a culture of looking out for each other. I'd argue that has only successfully happened sustainably in smaller communities, and from the bottom up rather than the top down.
Take care of your neighbors, and ask them for help when you need it. You aren't proposing this here so I'm not arguing with you, but it never works for long when the "help" comes from the top down. For a short period we may actually see the government take resources from some to help others, but eventually that is corrupted and they stop at the point of taking resources and power.
When AI labs mature and inference costs start to matter, they will start optimizing for inference cost instead of sacrificing everything for intelligence.
But even without that, open weight models are already good enough and everyone would be fine with paying unsubsidized prices for them.
The problem is now the AI can do for $100 what took you 3 months full time.
Employers previously hired you because cheaper alternatives such as offshoring were impractical…
Now the AI is cheaper, faster, and better than domestic labor and offshoring while still hosted domestically…
Some will feel one doesn’t need an experienced rockstar to babysit an AI…
In about an hour I just solved about 80hrs worth of personal coding/debugging with a portion of a $20/month Claude subscription… Frankly it makes all my knowledge and experience feel kinda worthless… I only gave it a few sentences…
My POV is that indicates you need to up your expectations for yourself. You apparently have the knowledge and experience to cause 80 hours worth of work to be completed in a few sentences given today’s tools.
So then, given your knowledge and experience, what challenge would require 80 hours of real, focused work out of you using today’s tools?
It makes me feel actually sick that so many people can't separate their positive feelings about AI from people's misery (it must simply be "complaining"), and vice versa. As if both things can't exist, for some reason. It's a common tribalism problem, but it's been kicked up a hundredfold by AI.
if the complaints can be properly pointed at the actual problem - the corporate culture the complainers are actively upholding or the capitalist system at large, id be much more sympathetic
its a tribalism problem, but one of trying to uphold the current tribe system while theres a pretty obvious new tribe system replacing it
What makes you think everybody will be able to adapt to 'the new reality'? That's pretty cruel.
I know plenty of people in their late 40's 50's and 60's that were doing fine and who now have to compete with junior and Claude.
And sometimes just Claude.
Obviously they had no inherent right to income but still, people have obligations that need to be met and if they stop spending the economy is not going to be happy. Especially cruel because we have been telling everybody for decades that a career in software is stable and that there will always be a need for more people.
I suspect that when all this is over 1929 will look pretty good.
> What makes you think everybody will be able to adapt to 'the new reality'? That's pretty cruel.
I don’t, necessarily; but I do know that if you’re not even trying, then you’re putting yourself at greater risk. This isn’t one of those developments that people can just stubbornly dig their heels in about.
Life throws obstacles at everyone. Learning how to dodge and weave is essential to survival.
> I suspect that when all this is over 1929 will look pretty good.
Seriously: this is a massive problem that we are creating and given that the tools that make the problem require better tools to solve them I really am not all that happy about how this is going.
Sorry but you are coming off as utterly tone deaf and patronizing. People are losing their jobs. This is not a small thing and it will cause a lot of misery for those people. To effectively tell them to man up and to adapt when that simply isn't an option is losing sight of the human angle. Not every problem is a technical one and not every problem can be solved with technology.
I'm not worried about myself, I've had a lot of luck in my life for which I'm super greatful. But I'm also quite aware of the exceptional position that puts me in and how many people are not so fortunate that they could probably live on their savings for the rest of their life if things ground to a halt.
Most people live paycheck to paycheck, or they may have a few thousand bucks in savings at most. They've worked hard all their lives and simply were never in a position to save enough against this kind of eventuality because the deck was stacked against them.
Have a heart, and realize that barring a couple of unfortunate moves it could be you looking at your last 500 bucks with rent due and a couple of mouths to feed.
> Sorry but you are coming off as utterly tone deaf and patronizing.
I’m sorry if it’s coming across that way. It’s not my intent, and I’m aware that many people are a lost paycheck away from a crisis.
But if you really think the right thing to do in response is to complain and commiserate, I don’t think that is helpful, either. I think it’s much better to encourage behavior that has a chance of being effective.
If you think it’s somehow wrong to encourage people to behave in such a way that has a better chance of setting them up for success, then I vehemently disagree.
> To effectively tell them... to adapt when that simply isn't an option is losing sight of the human angle.
You must have a pretty low opinion of people if you think they can’t adapt.
Possibly. But 1/this thread doesn’t seem designed for that; and 2/I’m not sure what outcome you’re contemplating. If it’s “we need better unemployment insurance and public healthcare,” I’m totally down with that. If it’s “ban the use of AI for writing software,” I think that’s a fool’s errand: the genie is not going back into that bottle.
This thread is not designed for discussion? I'm not even sure what that means. If the sentiments expressed in this thread lead to people discussing the same topic elsewhere, does it matter what this thread is "designed for"?
> 2/I’m not sure what outcome you’re contemplating
What does that have to do with anything? I'm responding to a comment complaining about the fact that others were complaining about a narrowly envisioned future which seems, to them, inevitable. I'm merely pointing out that the dissenting opinions could have value to individuals who want different outcomes from the ones predicted.
> This thread is not designed for discussion? I'm not even sure what that means. If the sentiments expressed in this thread lead to people discussing the same topic elsewhere, does it matter what this thread is "designed for"?
It means that that’s not where the conservation in this thread is going, and in my experience on HN, almost never does. There’s no organizing going on here. It’s not even clear what a group of organized people would fight for based on the conversations here.
Finally, I’m not telling people they can’t commiserate or complain. It’s an open forum for people to speak their minds. However, that freedom cuts both ways; people are equally allowed and encouraged to have contrarian views that are respected.
How do you know there aren't people organizing after discussing something online and realizing there are others out there who agree with them? You assume, but you don't know.
And yet, you speak confidently, as though you do know. What's with that?
Do you have evidence that rules it out? It's a distinct possibility. A lot of complaining and commiserating had to happen before unionization took place en masse.
Nevertheless, you seem to insist on one vision of the future, predicted without evidence. I suggest the unpredictability of (or absence of) that future and you expect that I should explain exactly what the alternatives are.
The evidence is that it’s happening right in front of our eyes. The fear and anxiety are driven by some people’s natural responses to that, as they see it, too.
I’m not going to produce a laundry list of how it’s already impacting engineering productivity and practice. You can look that up yourself.
> I’m not going to produce a laundry list of how it’s already impacting engineering productivity and practice
That's because you don't have one.
I work for a big tech company. My org is being asked to be more judicious with AI usage because there is no evidence that it improves productivity and is in fact slowing some work down. Recent studies back this up. It is affecting practice, not productivity.
> The fear and anxiety are driven by some people’s natural responses to that, as they see it, too.
How do you separate that out as the cause of the anxiety, when the leaders of AI companies are actively fearmongering about the power of their technology?
I hate the idea that it’s considered “tone deaf” to encourage people to adapt to changing conditions. I’m not going to adopt a pessimistic tone and say “yup we’re all fucked, ain’t nothing we can do.” It’s intentionally changing the tone, not being deaf to it.
How long would you be able to sustain a mostly-comfortable lifestyle if you were to lose your job right now with no chance of finding new employment? If the answer is, say, more than a year, that might alter your perspective on the issue.
As the conversation was about the societal trend. For the vast majority of people the answer is <= 1 month and it drops off precipitously adding months on.
This is sensible and pragmatic, but I think you're talking past the other commenter.
Obstacles presented by, for example, your boss, or your company's competitors, or your political system, are not the same as obstacles like heartbreak, natural disasters, emotions, illnesses we cannot yet cure.
> Learning how to dodge and weave is essential to survival.
A lot of people perceive that elites are throwing dodgeballs at them in order to increase their own profits. Saying "them's the breaks, it's just the way it is" appears to be deflecting criticism from those elites and that system.
It probably depends on whether you think we could actually feed everyone, today, if we chose to, or if you think e.g. human nature prevents that from being possible.
> I don’t, necessarily; but I do know that if you’re not even trying, then you’re putting yourself at greater risk.
We could also all put our gifts toward preventing the "new reality" you see as inevitable, and put you at greater risk.
The future isn't written yet. Your ability to predict it is an illusion. In aggregate, people whose job it is to predict large-scale economic events are worse than chance in their predictions.
You'll note that I didn't make a prediction. Nor did I tell someone their prediction was wrong. I called into question someone's certainty about their own prediction.
> We could also all put our gifts toward preventing the "new reality" you see as inevitable, and put you at greater risk.
I can read between the lines.
Also, this new reality is today. You may not be seeing this in your place of business or culture yet, but for many of us, it arrived up to 2 years ago.
As mentioned elsewhere, my org is asking us to reduce usage because it is expensive and there's no evidence it improves productivity.
If that's happening at [redacted] of all places, I think it's reasonable to think that the technology may not be as transformative as predicted due to its (currently) poor performance in generating revenue.
We're profiting from its inefficiency by selling compute to other companies, especially AI startups. It's expensive and unprofitable for them and a cash cow for us. The position we're taking is bearish and somewhat more reversible than that taken by Meta, for example.
I am thinking of a study showing that political pundits do worse than chance at predicting the political future (this does not include election modeling, which is not punditry).
There's no realistic way to compose a statistical model for what will happen to a society when a powerful new technology is introduced. Predictors of our brave new AI world are going to be about as accurate as our pundits.
HN stranger, I want to observe that you shared a suicidal idea. I'm sorry to read about your unemployment situation and know things must not be easy. As one HNer to another, I implore you to not to pursue that path and seek help in doing so. That we are members of this community confers to us opportunities to build knowledge that serve us well as life long learners. In that vein, going back to school is not a bad idea.
Having been in this game for a long time, I get the negative aspects of the industry. They grind on me, as I believe they have for you. Choosing a different path is not an all or nothing proposition. Your knowledge, and you as a person, have value. I hope you find a way towards better mental health and wish you well on that journey.
Thanks for saying that. My sentiments are the same. Life is difficult for many, and we all struggle in different ways. I’m sure bluefirebrand has something amazing to contribute to this world, even if it’s not what they think it is right now.
The whole "needing a job" thing is already part of a tribe though. It's a tribe that says (and enforces) that everyone needs to work for money or else.
I don’t think bluefirebrand is in the tribe of “everyone must have a job or die” so much as they’re in the tribe of “everyone says I must have a job or die”. Like yeah if I was forced at gunpoint to possess something or be ostracized from society then I too would be a little perturbed if someone made an automatic “take away the thing” device.
Well you’re not alone, I’m a little more stubbornly optimistic perhaps, but I feel your stress.
My comforting thoughts are, who is this all for, and what would happen if AI actually makes human labor redundant? Labs control the AI sure, but so much stuff is built around humans that it almost becomes comical to think it would be a bad outcome for a the average person.
Farms and land don’t cease to exist, houses/apartments don’t go up in flames instantly, people aren’t reduced to functionless sludge creatures as soon as they’re done being economic drivers. What’s the real plan? All the normal people die and a thousand or so chosen few sit around and watch AI videos and eat grapes until the heat death of the universe?
Nah, we’ll figure it out, perhaps it will be harder temporarily, and perhaps SWEs lose status before everyone else, but it will probably be okay overall.
But the incentives are not aligned, we are slaves to Moloch, the god of path dependence as described in Slate Star Codex.
Imagine what happens if landlords decided one day to collectively demand more money than actually exists in the total monthly income of workers. What would happen?
You can point out that if everyone just stopped paying rent, their houses and apartments would still exist, and they could live rent-free as their landlords would have no money to spend on enforcement. Technically, this is not untrue. But it's not what would actually happen, is it? One person would be the first to default on their rent, and their landlord would use the money collected from all their other tenants to seize back that tenant's formerly rented property. No individual tenant would dare to be the first to stop paying rent, so they all continue paying rent, selling their stuff, taking out loans until there's physically no way for them to keep paying, and only then do they default.
Yeah, correct, but I think it's also necessary to apportion blame correctly. Tribalism is a big part of the problem here. When people propose solutions to this problem they're often met with purely tribalist counter-screaming.
‘Having to work for money’ beats ‘having to hunt and farm for food’ and it’s technically a small step away.
‘Not having to work and being warm and fed’ is called being a pet. Some cats and dogs enjoy this life greatly. I’ve been thinking about this a lot recently.
Precisely. I have both feelings simulataneously. I am impressed by what it can do and horrified because I realize what it will do to the job market and society in general. Meanwhile everybody seems to believe that AI will cure cancer and therefore we should let it do all the damage it will do without realizing that people will die because of AI as well (in fact have already died because of AI).
I don't think that's true, Gaza residents die at much higher rates. Give it another 30 years for all the truth to come out and we'll probably learn that 98% of them were already dead as of the time of this comment.
Yes, what is happening in Gaza is disgusting, but the context was people dying on account of AI and this was the most concrete example that came to mind.
If anything, AI could have prevented this strike by invalidating stale targeting data. The school building had originally been part of an IRGC military installation, then was physically separated about ten years ago. Satellite data would have made it abundantly clear that it was functioning as a school. A human in the loop could have prevented this tragedy by looking at the satellite data, but so could an AI system.
In every war, countless innocent people die due to mis-targeting or other failure modes. At times the casualty count there exceeds military deaths. It is so common that we have a term for it: collateral damage.
So the question is: does AI lower such damage?
If AI had not been used in the attack on Iran, history indicates the death tolls in this regard would likely been much higher.
Not making a political statement or implying support for the war. Just making a point that these comparisons are more complicated that your example.
> If anything, it should make me more optimistic, not less. If you have an idea, you can turn it into product within 30 minutes, no matter how complicated it is.
There is no product in that anymore because someone else could copy your product in the same time.
Right? If it's so easy and cheap where is the value? There is no value.
This fallacy is second to only every SME believing their jobs are going to be the jobs AI can't replace.
You have QA engineers chiming in about how "QA" isn't going anywhere.. On threads talking about code, tests, and PR reviews being completely automated.. PR reviews being a quality assurance activity..
AI cannot possibly do meaningful bio science because it cannot run experiments on its own. It's limited by the crap science papers others have written, often with "third party" funding, i.e. in direct or indirect dependency from pharma.
I guess my wording was really bad. The point I was trying badly to make: I wasn't thinking about cell-level stuff, but rather human-level observations, experiments, etc. and these are not possible in a lab but only out in the "real world." I don't see AI running anything on that level.
edit: that would be more like medicine, not bio-science
AI has essentially stolen my career from me. I _liked_ having to solve complicated problems with software, I enjoyed having to get into the nitty gritty to get things done. I never really cared that much about the actual business problems I was solving, so moving up a layer of abstraction to be some sort of bastardized product manager/architect does not scratch the same itch.
OTOH, for solving problems I care about, AI has been a god send. I can achieve things that I would have never had the time for.
Ooph, this quote sounds so much worse taken out of context.
My understanding from reading the lwn article is Linus's implication is more specifically about filtering out people that cannot write code without LLMs or the willingness to spend the money on the tokens required to uphold the quality of the kernel. He does not want to push out developers that do not use LLMs.
Linus Torvalds has never cared all that much about the freedom aspect. Why not make the kernel GPLv3 or sue some companies violating even the GPLv2, for example?
I agree.. partly, and my problem is with enjoyment. I did some hand coding today and immediately got in the zone, something I'm still not able to do with LLMs. It most definitely took me probably ~2x longer than it would with an LLM, but it was much more enjoyable owning every decision behind the process, and having a full view of how the system worked.
I think this could be achievable with LLMs if they had a much higher token rate. That way you'd have less downtime and could work on the problem more aggressively. How it's designed to work now, offloading cognitively, doesn't feel very good, even when you 'ship' more.
Yeah, I can never get in the zone with LLMs either. It’s like operating in constant interruption mode. And I always thought I was good at multitasking (even though I know formally it’s an illusion)
I get it, I've gotten a lot of joy over the decades from the specific act of programming. But I also get a lot of joy from making something. I'm old enough now that I don't have a lot of my time left to "hand stitch an amazing tapestry". But with AI tooling, I do have time to try out a bunch of ideas and see how they work, scratch little itches and also just run a mad scientist library of experiments, without each experiment taking tens or hundreds of hours of coding to see how that experiment pans out.
> I'm old enough now that I don't have a lot of my time left to "hand stitch an amazing tapestry".
Why not? What is the goal of "having an amazing tapestry"? Do you need to do increasing more things in the limited time you have left and making a tapestry isn't one of those things? What will you have once you've "finished" an amazing tapestry, just something to hang on the wall and look at? How does one "use" a tapestry after it's "finished" such that the act of finishing it is the most important thing? If you've finished it, will you get more enjoyment from looking at it for longer because it was finished sooner and thus the length of time you can look at it before you die is maximized? Exactly what you are optimizing for here?
I've done hard things. Many of them have a significant amount of time that is a slog. A tapestry is going to have a lot of days of just slog work. And that's fine. Doing hard things can be very rewarding. I've reupholstered a couch by taking it down to the sticks, repairing and reinforcing the frame ("hey kids, the couch isn't designed for walking and jumping on"), enhancing the design, re-springing it, redesigning the cushions so that they didn't need readjusting every time you sat down, making new foam cushions, and then sewing a upholstery. Took 3-4 months.
But, I'm in the last half of my 50s. The project you're commenting on, apt-cacher-ultra, probably would have taken 2 full time developer years to get to where it is now, and I'm doing some pretty big changes for the next version. I literally probably have a handful of that sort of project I can do left in my life, assuming I quit my job now and work full time on it.
Let me tell you, it's pretty sobering to be faced with: "I may only be doing this once, maybe twice more in my career."
So yes, building experiments where I get to try out my ideas without 2 developer-years of coding required is going to give me an opportunity for a lot of creation that I otherwise wouldn't have had. I've spent decades hand-crafting code, I fully understand the joy of doing so.
I've been seeing too much "I've been coding for decades and what I've always done has be reduced to telling AI to do it for me."
and not nearly enough "I've been coding for decades and recently worked hard for months with AI's help to make something I would have never considered possible before."
Much easier to complain that you are bored than to step back up to high-effort with your new fancy tools.
If you can make it solo with an LLM then someone else with an LLM can copy it immediately
That happened at least 20 years ago. How many recent "this product did so great because of the care of software engineering, and now the creator is comfortable for the rest of their life without risk of it being copied" success stories are there compared to "this product chased some trends VCs were nuts about with a slapdash MVP and the founders took out 8 figures from their later fundraising rounds, but then the business sputtered out"?
I think there's an angle with AI tools where business-minded people will have a better chance of doing interesting things now than in the recent past, because you could potentially tailor much more deeply to individual customers with reasonable economics than in the past. There are fields where there's room for a garden of solutions from different small-team vendors appropriate for different use cases instead of a one-size-fits-all SaaS winner-take-all type market in the past. We could kill the old line about SAP around needing to change your business to accommodate SAP instead of customize SAP to accommodate your existing workflow.
But if you aren't business-minded at all there are likely less places that will need to hire as many careful maintainers or novel-software-writers, which obviously is a huge kick in the teeth to a lot of people.
You could also focus on problems. What are the actual problems you want to solve? Can you use software to solve them? Do you still need to buy that software from other companies, or is it now feasible to have sufficient in-house expertise to develop it yourself?
why are you here if you dont enjoy the solving of problems first and foremost?
Can we please, for once, stop trying to figure out how to "get ahead" of each other, and instead figure out how to build a decent and dignified floor for as many people as possible? Because I imagine that, "Ultimate power in the hands of anyone with enough VRAM to run GTAVI," works better when people are in a culture of looking out for each other, versus a culture of clawing their way to one of the limited lifeboat spots (under the mistaken impression that there ARE lifeboats, when, again, everyone potentially has the power to blow up the lifeboats).
You end up with the government deciding how much bread each person needs, how much the bread will cost, how much to pay a person so they can pay the defined price for the allocated amount of bread, etc.
Either utopian claims of an AI and robot-powered future are right and we don't need money because you can just have what you want, or money and resources will still be scarce and we will continue to compete amongst ourselves for resources.
2) America in 2026 is not the USSR in the 20th century, so even if they did, our circumstances are very different from theirs.
3) UBI was only the first suggestion; you completely failed to address the other and then jumped to a black-and-white conclusion.
The general thrust of my proposition was that people shouldn't have to submit to an artificial system of manufactured competition and unnecessary "productivity" in order to access goods that are objectively abundant. When people realize that and make the necessary compromises, they won't have to worry about shipping useless AI-assisted slop for "income security" and can focus on using AI to build consequential and useful software.
Please do not get bogged down in whatever kneejerk anti-UBI thought-loop your misaligned amygdala is screaming at you.
2) I didn't say the US is the USSR. I pointed to a clear example where a UBI-like structure was tried and failed. Feel free to call out specific differences that may help it work better today in the US, I'm genuinely curious despite my skeptism.
3) I can respond to the others as well, but that isn't necessary to have an interesting debate or discussion on any one topic. If one was required to respond to all raised ideas they could try to shut down all conversation by threading together a long list of hard to discuss topics, avoiding responses to any one topic.
I do agree people can avoid having to submit to AI or ML systems though. We ultimately all make our decisions, some more impactful than others, and if we end up in a dystopian future with no jobs and AIs/robots in charge of the world we made that bed for ourselves.
I'm not bogged down in any kneejerk reactions and I'm not parroting what I've heard air bags saying elsewhere. I've read up on the topic, the history of the USSR, and read Marx writings (well the translations, I speak some Dutch but no German). We may disagree, but my views aren't uneducated reactions.
2) >I pointed to a clear example where a UBI-like structure was tried and failed.
You did not.
3) That's not applicable here. Why did you respond to the UBI issue only?
>I do agree people can avoid having to submit to AI or ML systems though.
I didn't speak to this at all. The "artificial system of manufactured competition and unnecessary 'productivity'" is independent of AI and ML and has existed for several decades.
>my views aren't uneducated reactions.
See 1.
My conclusion is that you actually aren't interested in a conversation. You haven't responded earnestly or considerately to anything in my initial post except the portion suggesting UBI, which you dismissed with a faulty presence.
Here is my suggestion: talk about something else from that post. Anything else. Do not revisit the UBI topic.
I did respond earnestly, whether you accept it or if I'm explaining myself poorly. You have yet to propose how a UBI would actually work, or pointed to an example of it ever having worked in the past. Socialism and Marxism have been tried, the don't work. And yes, UBI is an idea that goes back to Marx's writings.
I 100% agree people need a culture of looking out for each other. I'd argue that has only successfully happened sustainably in smaller communities, and from the bottom up rather than the top down.
Take care of your neighbors, and ask them for help when you need it. You aren't proposing this here so I'm not arguing with you, but it never works for long when the "help" comes from the top down. For a short period we may actually see the government take resources from some to help others, but eventually that is corrupted and they stop at the point of taking resources and power.
I was a fantastic IC and built really amazing software. I'm an even better AI-empowered engineer.
The old era is dead. The new one is exciting.
But even without that, open weight models are already good enough and everyone would be fine with paying unsubsidized prices for them.
Employers previously hired you because cheaper alternatives such as offshoring were impractical…
Now the AI is cheaper, faster, and better than domestic labor and offshoring while still hosted domestically…
Some will feel one doesn’t need an experienced rockstar to babysit an AI…
In about an hour I just solved about 80hrs worth of personal coding/debugging with a portion of a $20/month Claude subscription… Frankly it makes all my knowledge and experience feel kinda worthless… I only gave it a few sentences…
So then, given your knowledge and experience, what challenge would require 80 hours of real, focused work out of you using today’s tools?
its a tribalism problem, but one of trying to uphold the current tribe system while theres a pretty obvious new tribe system replacing it
AI has taken that security away from me
I’m not trying to be contrary, just that doesn’t say a lot.
I know plenty of people in their late 40's 50's and 60's that were doing fine and who now have to compete with junior and Claude.
And sometimes just Claude.
Obviously they had no inherent right to income but still, people have obligations that need to be met and if they stop spending the economy is not going to be happy. Especially cruel because we have been telling everybody for decades that a career in software is stable and that there will always be a need for more people.
I suspect that when all this is over 1929 will look pretty good.
I don’t, necessarily; but I do know that if you’re not even trying, then you’re putting yourself at greater risk. This isn’t one of those developments that people can just stubbornly dig their heels in about.
Life throws obstacles at everyone. Learning how to dodge and weave is essential to survival.
> I suspect that when all this is over 1929 will look pretty good.
Oh come on. Let’s not be so dramatic, shall we?
You'd have said the same thing in 1928...
Seriously: this is a massive problem that we are creating and given that the tools that make the problem require better tools to solve them I really am not all that happy about how this is going.
Hindsight is 20/20. Besides, what good is panicking? It won’t help with the inevitable; better to adapt and save for it.
> the tools that make the problem require better tools to solve them
You’ve found the opening :-)
I'm not worried about myself, I've had a lot of luck in my life for which I'm super greatful. But I'm also quite aware of the exceptional position that puts me in and how many people are not so fortunate that they could probably live on their savings for the rest of their life if things ground to a halt.
Most people live paycheck to paycheck, or they may have a few thousand bucks in savings at most. They've worked hard all their lives and simply were never in a position to save enough against this kind of eventuality because the deck was stacked against them.
Have a heart, and realize that barring a couple of unfortunate moves it could be you looking at your last 500 bucks with rent due and a couple of mouths to feed.
I’m sorry if it’s coming across that way. It’s not my intent, and I’m aware that many people are a lost paycheck away from a crisis.
But if you really think the right thing to do in response is to complain and commiserate, I don’t think that is helpful, either. I think it’s much better to encourage behavior that has a chance of being effective.
If you think it’s somehow wrong to encourage people to behave in such a way that has a better chance of setting them up for success, then I vehemently disagree.
> To effectively tell them... to adapt when that simply isn't an option is losing sight of the human angle.
You must have a pretty low opinion of people if you think they can’t adapt.
What if complaining and commiserating leads to fighting for political actions that lead to outcomes we like better?
This thread is not designed for discussion? I'm not even sure what that means. If the sentiments expressed in this thread lead to people discussing the same topic elsewhere, does it matter what this thread is "designed for"?
> 2/I’m not sure what outcome you’re contemplating
What does that have to do with anything? I'm responding to a comment complaining about the fact that others were complaining about a narrowly envisioned future which seems, to them, inevitable. I'm merely pointing out that the dissenting opinions could have value to individuals who want different outcomes from the ones predicted.
It means that that’s not where the conservation in this thread is going, and in my experience on HN, almost never does. There’s no organizing going on here. It’s not even clear what a group of organized people would fight for based on the conversations here.
Finally, I’m not telling people they can’t commiserate or complain. It’s an open forum for people to speak their minds. However, that freedom cuts both ways; people are equally allowed and encouraged to have contrarian views that are respected.
How do you know there aren't people organizing after discussing something online and realizing there are others out there who agree with them? You assume, but you don't know.
And yet, you speak confidently, as though you do know. What's with that?
I’m not going to produce a laundry list of how it’s already impacting engineering productivity and practice. You can look that up yourself.
That's because you don't have one.
I work for a big tech company. My org is being asked to be more judicious with AI usage because there is no evidence that it improves productivity and is in fact slowing some work down. Recent studies back this up. It is affecting practice, not productivity.
> The fear and anxiety are driven by some people’s natural responses to that, as they see it, too.
How do you separate that out as the cause of the anxiety, when the leaders of AI companies are actively fearmongering about the power of their technology?
I agree, but I'd like to think these people come from a optimistic point of view.
A lot of people don't seem to understand that the "human in the loop" is exactly the thing the big AI leaders want to cut out as much as possible.
This is sensible and pragmatic, but I think you're talking past the other commenter.
Obstacles presented by, for example, your boss, or your company's competitors, or your political system, are not the same as obstacles like heartbreak, natural disasters, emotions, illnesses we cannot yet cure.
> Learning how to dodge and weave is essential to survival.
A lot of people perceive that elites are throwing dodgeballs at them in order to increase their own profits. Saying "them's the breaks, it's just the way it is" appears to be deflecting criticism from those elites and that system.
It probably depends on whether you think we could actually feed everyone, today, if we chose to, or if you think e.g. human nature prevents that from being possible.
We could also all put our gifts toward preventing the "new reality" you see as inevitable, and put you at greater risk.
The future isn't written yet. Your ability to predict it is an illusion. In aggregate, people whose job it is to predict large-scale economic events are worse than chance in their predictions.
I can read between the lines.
Also, this new reality is today. You may not be seeing this in your place of business or culture yet, but for many of us, it arrived up to 2 years ago.
If that's happening at [redacted] of all places, I think it's reasonable to think that the technology may not be as transformative as predicted due to its (currently) poor performance in generating revenue.
We're profiting from its inefficiency by selling compute to other companies, especially AI startups. It's expensive and unprofitable for them and a cash cow for us. The position we're taking is bearish and somewhat more reversible than that taken by Meta, for example.
Sounds good, but isn't supported by data. Tetlock did not establish that all experts are worse than chance.
> The average expert was slightly better than chance.
-Tetlock
There's no realistic way to compose a statistical model for what will happen to a society when a powerful new technology is introduced. Predictors of our brave new AI world are going to be about as accurate as our pundits.
That or swallow a bullet, we'll see. Haven't decided. We'll see how long my current unemployment lasts, and how long my savings last after that
Having been in this game for a long time, I get the negative aspects of the industry. They grind on me, as I believe they have for you. Choosing a different path is not an all or nothing proposition. Your knowledge, and you as a person, have value. I hope you find a way towards better mental health and wish you well on that journey.
>Your knowledge, and you as a person, have value.
This is the exact thing AI is threatening to take away.
What will it not replace, eventually?
Been seeing a counselor for over a year already
Went and made a doctor, guess it's time to look into medication
Thanks
Don't worry about me, I'll be fine. Been here before, just very unhappy to be here again that's all
I'm sorry for your loss, but welcome also to the real world. You had it better than most for a long while.
My lifestyle isn't super expensive, but I can't afford to retire or anything. I have a mortgage that I still owe money on
My comforting thoughts are, who is this all for, and what would happen if AI actually makes human labor redundant? Labs control the AI sure, but so much stuff is built around humans that it almost becomes comical to think it would be a bad outcome for a the average person.
Farms and land don’t cease to exist, houses/apartments don’t go up in flames instantly, people aren’t reduced to functionless sludge creatures as soon as they’re done being economic drivers. What’s the real plan? All the normal people die and a thousand or so chosen few sit around and watch AI videos and eat grapes until the heat death of the universe?
Nah, we’ll figure it out, perhaps it will be harder temporarily, and perhaps SWEs lose status before everyone else, but it will probably be okay overall.
Imagine what happens if landlords decided one day to collectively demand more money than actually exists in the total monthly income of workers. What would happen?
You can point out that if everyone just stopped paying rent, their houses and apartments would still exist, and they could live rent-free as their landlords would have no money to spend on enforcement. Technically, this is not untrue. But it's not what would actually happen, is it? One person would be the first to default on their rent, and their landlord would use the money collected from all their other tenants to seize back that tenant's formerly rented property. No individual tenant would dare to be the first to stop paying rent, so they all continue paying rent, selling their stuff, taking out loans until there's physically no way for them to keep paying, and only then do they default.
I am strongly feeling I'm already redundant
‘Not having to work and being warm and fed’ is called being a pet. Some cats and dogs enjoy this life greatly. I’ve been thinking about this a lot recently.
Give it some time and you'll be adding to that list.
In every war, countless innocent people die due to mis-targeting or other failure modes. At times the casualty count there exceeds military deaths. It is so common that we have a term for it: collateral damage.
So the question is: does AI lower such damage?
If AI had not been used in the attack on Iran, history indicates the death tolls in this regard would likely been much higher.
Not making a political statement or implying support for the war. Just making a point that these comparisons are more complicated that your example.
> If anything, it should make me more optimistic, not less. If you have an idea, you can turn it into product within 30 minutes, no matter how complicated it is.
There is no product in that anymore because someone else could copy your product in the same time.
This fallacy is second to only every SME believing their jobs are going to be the jobs AI can't replace.
You have QA engineers chiming in about how "QA" isn't going anywhere.. On threads talking about code, tests, and PR reviews being completely automated.. PR reviews being a quality assurance activity..
Cancer deaths are going to sky rocket before this is all over.
https://globalmecho.com/lights-out-lab/
I guess my wording was really bad. The point I was trying badly to make: I wasn't thinking about cell-level stuff, but rather human-level observations, experiments, etc. and these are not possible in a lab but only out in the "real world." I don't see AI running anything on that level.
edit: that would be more like medicine, not bio-science
https://learn.hms.harvard.edu/insights/all-insights/how-arti...
Yes, detection with AI is obviously already superior to doctors, but on research I remain skeptical.
AI has essentially stolen my career from me. I _liked_ having to solve complicated problems with software, I enjoyed having to get into the nitty gritty to get things done. I never really cared that much about the actual business problems I was solving, so moving up a layer of abstraction to be some sort of bastardized product manager/architect does not scratch the same itch.
OTOH, for solving problems I care about, AI has been a god send. I can achieve things that I would have never had the time for.
Now I must pay for codex/claude, and that money goes to billionaires psychopaths. So that sucks as you can imagine
My understanding from reading the lwn article is Linus's implication is more specifically about filtering out people that cannot write code without LLMs or the willingness to spend the money on the tokens required to uphold the quality of the kernel. He does not want to push out developers that do not use LLMs.
I think this could be achievable with LLMs if they had a much higher token rate. That way you'd have less downtime and could work on the problem more aggressively. How it's designed to work now, offloading cognitively, doesn't feel very good, even when you 'ship' more.
I get it, I've gotten a lot of joy over the decades from the specific act of programming. But I also get a lot of joy from making something. I'm old enough now that I don't have a lot of my time left to "hand stitch an amazing tapestry". But with AI tooling, I do have time to try out a bunch of ideas and see how they work, scratch little itches and also just run a mad scientist library of experiments, without each experiment taking tens or hundreds of hours of coding to see how that experiment pans out.
Why not? What is the goal of "having an amazing tapestry"? Do you need to do increasing more things in the limited time you have left and making a tapestry isn't one of those things? What will you have once you've "finished" an amazing tapestry, just something to hang on the wall and look at? How does one "use" a tapestry after it's "finished" such that the act of finishing it is the most important thing? If you've finished it, will you get more enjoyment from looking at it for longer because it was finished sooner and thus the length of time you can look at it before you die is maximized? Exactly what you are optimizing for here?
Let's call it "Joy".
I've done hard things. Many of them have a significant amount of time that is a slog. A tapestry is going to have a lot of days of just slog work. And that's fine. Doing hard things can be very rewarding. I've reupholstered a couch by taking it down to the sticks, repairing and reinforcing the frame ("hey kids, the couch isn't designed for walking and jumping on"), enhancing the design, re-springing it, redesigning the cushions so that they didn't need readjusting every time you sat down, making new foam cushions, and then sewing a upholstery. Took 3-4 months.
But, I'm in the last half of my 50s. The project you're commenting on, apt-cacher-ultra, probably would have taken 2 full time developer years to get to where it is now, and I'm doing some pretty big changes for the next version. I literally probably have a handful of that sort of project I can do left in my life, assuming I quit my job now and work full time on it.
Let me tell you, it's pretty sobering to be faced with: "I may only be doing this once, maybe twice more in my career."
So yes, building experiments where I get to try out my ideas without 2 developer-years of coding required is going to give me an opportunity for a lot of creation that I otherwise wouldn't have had. I've spent decades hand-crafting code, I fully understand the joy of doing so.