AI is starting to look like a net negative for humanity. I remember the early days of OpenAI. I was super excited about it. There was a new space to uncover and learn about. I was hopeful.
Now I have this love/hate relationship with it. Claude Code is amazing. I use it everyday because it makes me so much more efficient at my job. But I also know that by using it I’m contributing to making my job redundant one day.
At the same time I see how much resources we are wasting on AI. And to what end? Does anybody really buy the BS that this will all make the world a better place one day? So many people we could shelter and feed, but instead we are spending it on trying to make your computer check and answer your emails for you. At what point do we just look up and ask… what is the damn purpose of all of this? I guess money.
Well, on the other hand, software isn’t all about checking emails.
I know someone who worked for a nonprofit that made pregnancy health software that worked over text messaging. Its clients were women in Africa who didn’t have much, but they had a cell phone, so they could get reminders, track vitals, and so forth.
They had to find enough funding to pay several software engineers to build and maintain that system. If AI allows a single person to do it, at much lower cost, is that bad?
So, here is a case where AI was a technical fix to a social problem: that as a global society, funding is skewed away from things which benefit people. Google can find the budget for as many ad-touchers as it wants, but nonprofits have to scrounge and make do by paying for "metered intelligence" from a megacorp.
So in isolation, I think it's great that they managed to achieve this. But I mourn that the only way they achieved it was via this rapacious truth-destroying machine.
This isn't a new trend - AI didn't cause it. It's just the latest version of it.
Are they? Or do you just mean that it's few and far between that we hear about them? If it's the former, I think there's a much bigger universe of this kind of stuff than most people realize. Otoh, if you're just commenting on the lack of coverage, then, yeah I agree I wish more publicity was paid to small software like this. Maybe we need a catchy term - "organic software"? "Locally grown software"?
I talked to my friends who aren't in tech a lot about what they would want with software. A lot of the benefits of small software like this would actually be compliance and reporting issues with non-profit. Sifting through large amounts of data with very unstructured inputs.
The actual community building is fairly not as automated unless you have very specific problems. Like even in the example above, having an automated message is useful but staffing the team to handle when things are NOT in a good spot would probably be the real scaling cost.
I feel you. This whole hoo-haa has made me so much more money-minded, and so much less optimistic about Software Development than I was 10 years ago. I just remind myself that it's bad now, but it can get much worse. Now I'm just trying to get what I can, then hopefully retire volunteering at an animal conservation sanctuary. And to the AI hopefuls, good luck, because I don't see any future where the zeitgeist of this technology won't just be about lining the pockets of already rich people.
The problem is scale. Beyond a certain scale it’s all a net negative: social networks, bitcoin, ads, machine learning, automated trading, big this big that, etc.
Unfortunately for fellow developers, software enables massive scale.
> But I also know that by using it I’m contributing to making my job redundant one day.
I don't see how this is the case if you're anything more than a junior engineer... it unlocks so many possibilities. You can do so much more now. We are more limited by our ideas at this point than anything else.
Why is the reaction of so many people, once their menial work gets automated, "oh no, my menial work is automated." Why is it not "sweet, now I can do bigger/better/more ambitious things?"
(You can go on about corporate culture as the cause, but I've worked at regular corporations and most of FAANG. Initiative is rewarded almost everywhere.)
> Does anybody really buy the BS that this will all make the world a better place one day?
Why is it BS? I'm shocked that anyone with a love and passion for technology can feel this way. Have you not seen the long history of automation and what it has brought humanity?
There is a reason that we aren't dying of dysentery at the ripe age of 45 on some peasant field after a hard winter day's worth of hard labor. The march of automation and technology has already "made the world a better place."
>Why is the reaction of so many people, once their menial work gets automated, "oh no, my menial work is automated." Why is it not "sweet, now I can do bigger/better/more ambitious things?"
because i have rent to pay? old age to prepare for?
why is it so hard to understand most people are not rich, that the cost of living is high, and that most people are VERY afraid their jobs will be automated away? why is so hard to understand that most people haven't worked at FAANG, they don't have stocks or savings, and are squeezed harder with every new day and every new war?
Because there is always work to do. It is true that demand will drop for those that don't take initiative and aren't sure what to do now that AI can do their repetitive tasks. However, demand will surge for those that can think critically about how to utilize AI to empower businesses.
"Software engineer" as a profession is rapidly getting automated at my company, and yet our SWEs are delivering more value than ever before. The layer of abstraction has changed, that is all.
> what world, what reality are you guys living in?!
One that has seen immense benefits from the Industrial Revolution and previous waves of automation.
you might want to brush up on the short and medium consequences of the industrial revolution and the dark satanic mills where children were maimed or where people worked for 12h a day in horrendous conditions.
Do you think because 2 dev are now super productive with AI, the company will keep the other average 30 devs? no, of course not, they will fire and pocket the difference. Same for other industries, where AI will slowly diffuse like a poisonous gas and displace jobs and people, leaving behind a crippled white collar class. The profits will not trickle down and the increased productivity will be a hatchet, not a plough.
> Do you think because 2 dev are now super productive with AI, the company will keep the other average 30 devs? no, of course not, they will fire and pocket the difference
Yes, they will keep the other devs that can figure out how to use AI well. Businesses want to grow.
That hasn't been my experience or the experience of anyone I know or have talked to about how LLMs have affected their work. The parent comment explains what happened.
The businesses fired the staff and pocketed the difference. The result? Growth, at least on paper, as you're saying. Previously they were paying for 10 people and now they're paying for 2 so more profit yay! Of course this is a short term gain which might result in long term pain. That last part remains to be seen.
Working conditions did decline as a result of industrialization. It wasn't until around the 20th century that we could say working conditions were better for most people than pre-industrial society.
> The rapid urbanisation that accompanied the Industrial Revolution in Britain is often argued to have been accompanied by a dramatic worsening of urban conditions [...] However, demographic evidence suggests that death rates were much higher in towns in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries than in the nineteenth century, and that the Industrial Revolution was accompanied by profound improvements in the survival of urban residents, especially infants and rural migrants.
> early industrialisation coincided with significant improvements in survival, especially in towns (Buer, 2013; Davenport, 2020a; Landers, 1993; Wrigley et al., 1997)
> population growth rates in excess of 1% per year would have resulted in falling real wages and hunger in any previous period [...] the fact that wages kept pace at all with increasing population should be viewed as a major achievement (Crafts and Mills, 2020; Wrigley, 2011).
Davenport, Romola J. (2021). "Mortality, migration and epidemiological change in English cities, 1600–1870." International Journal of Paleopathology, 34, 37–49. PMC7611108.
Nobody argued how many people died during the Industrial Revolution or before; quality of life, on the other hand...
That being said.
You cite a study implying (you, not the study) the Industrial Revolution was what lead to lower death rates, so it's all good.
But that's not what the study says:
> These patterns are better explained by changes in breastfeeding practices and the prevalence or virulence of particular pathogens than by changes in sanitary conditions or poverty. Mortality patterns amongst young adult migrants were affected by a shift from acute to chronic infectious diseases over the period.
"than by changes in sanitary conditions or poverty" [my emphasis]
But wait! there's more! from the same study:
> The available evidence indicates a decline in urban mortality in the period c.1750-1820, especially amongst infants and (probably) rural-urban migrants.
"especially amongst infants and (probably) rural-urban migrants" ...where is the industrial revolution here?
And if that was not enough:
>Mortality at ages 1-4 years demonstrated a more complex pattern, falling between 1750 and 1830 before rising abruptly in the mid-nineteenth century.
"rising abruptly in the mid-nineteenth century"
turns out industrial revolution did in fact raise mortality and death rates
> I don't see how this is the case if you're anything more than a junior engineer... it unlocks so many possibilities.
I really don't understand this way of thinking. Don't you think that AI could replace senior engineers? Sure, companies will be able to do bigger / better / more ambitious stuff - but without any software engineers.
> Why is it BS? I'm shocked that anyone with a love and passion for technology can feel this way. Have you not seen the long history of automation and what it has brought humanity?
I definitely think that AI will be a net benefit for society but it could easily end up being be bad for me.
there doesnt seem to be a limit in terms of the ceiling of what companies can do with software, probably the most elastic demand out of any industry ever
the swe role is going to change but problem solving systems thinkers with initiative won't go away
That's a possible outcome. Another possibility is that AI will handle all of the thinking and problem solving part. So the market value of thinking will drop. The bottleneck will still be humans, but their input will be (1) doing physical, real-world stuff (2) providing data that the AI doesn't have, e.g. information about a specific problem domain or how does a user interface feel.
assuming no asi, the market value of thinking without accountability trends to zero, the bottleneck will be thinking + accountability, at least for knowledge work
if ai truly solves novel thinking then nothing is a barrier. the physical world is downstream from robotics which is downstream from software. itll be able to persuade nation states to collect data for itself etc etc (insert sci fi ending)
So far AI doesn't seem even close to replacing senior engieeners. Hell, it can't even replace junior engieeners entirely.
I use AI agents every day at work and I'm happy with that, but it took over two years and billions of dollars in investment to deliver anything useful (Claude Code et al). The current models are amazing, but they still randomly make mistakes that even a junior wouldn't make.
There's another paradigm shift to be made certainly, because currently it feels like we scaled up a bug brain to spit out code. It works great for some problems, but it's not what software developers usually do at work.
And I’m shocked that anyone into tech can be so blind to the adverse effects the current tech industry is having on our world and our society.
We owe it to the world, as the experts, to be critical. The march of automation and technology has made the world a better place in some ways. I sure love modern medicine, but those drones flying over Ukraine and Russia sure don’t seem like they are making the world a better place. Nuclear bombs are not making the work a better place. Misinformation in social media is not making the world a better place.
Any belief you drink blindly will eventually find a way to harm you.
Oh yeah, no you are right. Sorry for focusing on that little part of space and time where I and everyone I know and love is alive and being affected by our decisions. How dumb of me!
It actually is genuinely wrong to prioritize your little bit of space and time over the needs of the species as a whole and the benefit of untold future billions.
If everyone thought like you we'd be stuck in the pre-Industrial phase. How miserable that would be!
AI won't be what acidifies our ocean, but AGI might save us from it.
Strangely enough, I don't see you calling to end the consumption of meat which would have a far larger environmental impact while not slowing global progress at all.
> "AI energy usage" is a convenient scapegoat not backed by data.
Except it's not what I said.
What I said is that with AI, we do more with more (energy). "Doing more" has repercussions that go further than just the energy used to vibe code.
The reason we are measurably living in a mass extinction (that is happening orders of magnitudes faster than the one that made the dinosaurs disappear) is also the reason the climate is measurably warming (to the point where it will probably kill many of us): we are really good at producing more by using more energy.
It's not one thing (like airplanes, or meat, or whatever you want): it's everywhere. It's the whole race for producing more and more. AI is exactly part of that.
Looking at the direct energy consumption of a technology (here AI) while conveniently ignoring all its indirect impacts and concluding that "I can't understand why people think that tech is part of the problem" shows a big lack of understanding of... well, what will probably kill your kids, most likely theirs.
I'm starting to get to the point where I'll only listen to AI energy use critiques if the commentator tells me up front they abstain from all forms of social media, especially video-based social media, first.
Note that I did not criticise the AI energy. I criticised tech as a whole. Tech is part of the problem (the problem here being "we are killing our only planet").
If the current admin wasn't waging a war on the renewables they don't have personal investments in and propping up their own AI investments energy needs with revitalized fossil fuel barons while they get in on the new pie-in-the-sky "future" energy sources the tech oligarchs point to (nuclear fusion startups) in order to at least get rich if an alternative fuel source they actually invested in pans out, I could perhaps reconsider the notion that this comment isn't worth the pixel it's colored on.
To add to list of questions - it's undeniable the AI is making humans dumber by doing mental job previously done by humans. So why we spend so much energy making AI smarter and fellow humans dumber?
Shouldn't we be moving in opposite direction - invest in people instead of some software and greedy psychopaths at helm of large companies behind it?
I hope you are right. I’ve been in this industry 20 years… the passionate developer or small team with the awesome software wins a few times, but 99% of the time it’s the shitty software with a great marketing and sales team that wins.
My prediction is that OpenClaw will eventually die. But it has provided a small glimpse of the future.The way the average consumers interact with computers will drastically change.
I can envision someone sitting in a park bench with a small set of earphones planning a family trip with their AI. They get home and see the details of it on their fridge. They check with their partner, and then just tell the AI to book it. And it all works.
I probably won’t use it and hate it. I’ll stick to my old ways of booking the trip with my fingers. But those born into it will look at me crazy.
Most websites are not a piece of art made only for its own sake an beauty (or lack thereof). The unstated intention of most websites is to transfer information to the reader. Making the reader dizzy, or hiding some of that information behind animations or stupid headers does not aid information transfer.
Because it's just as tasteless as the beginner who discovered the font dropdown and chose Papyrus. Yeah we're all marvelling at your web coding prowess -- has the actual content shown up on screen yet?
Ah yes, taste. That thing that is definitely NOT subjective, and NOT influenced by cultural norms and personal preferences rather than universal standards.
Yes you are right, guess you guys do have better “web taste”.
Why would anyone prefer pics of hipster drinking coffee over plain text?
I just want to read the site without having it jump all over the place. If it's running away from my eyes it probably doesn't want to be read so I just skip it. Probably wasn't important anyway.
They get hate because they are almost always annoying and distract from the actual content. Nobody cares how creative your web page design is if it sucks to use so badly that a plain text page would be better.
But do they really suck to use so badly? Like for real? The examples that have been listed in the comments (Apple and Claude sites) look totally fine to me. People here are talking about them like they are the worse websites ever.
Apple pages are _completely_ unusable because of this. If I go to product page I am unable to navigate it to extract information about the product. I give up and leave.
Try to skim this page to get a sense of how much information is on the page. You can't. 90% of the scroll time is stuck in useless animations.
Every time you scroll down you have to wait for the page to render. We've somehow recreated the dialup experience with single page apps.
Your brain is trained on how scrolling works on 95% of pages. Breaking that patterns causes tons of cognitive overhead. You now have to do a double-take every scroll action when you just want to absorb the contents of the page.
I get your preferences, and I am tempted to agree with you because there is a lot to hate about Apple.
But… this website is an ad. It’s not a product spec sheet. It’s not meant for you. It’s meant for people who don’t know a lot about computers or the web, and it’s meant to make them feel something about the product. Its goal is not to present data clearly. And as much as we may hate it, it does a brilliant job at what it’s trying to do. I think dismissing that because you are too deep into the “right way to make websites cult” is so shortsighted.
Are you actually trying to use any of those sites to get something done, or are you just looking at them and evaluating them as a piece of modern art? Because if you're actually trying to figure out which laptop to buy, Apple's web site has a lot of crap that gets in the way.
I agree with you. Personally I hate it. I was trying to figure out the specs of this laptop because my sister asked me if she should buy it. I had to do a lot of clicking.
But this site got my sister excited about buying the laptop. The stupid animations worked. And I am sure if this was presented to her as a simple html page with a white background and some text it just would not have had the same effect.
Like it or not, most websites are just ads. Interactive billboards. They are not there to present data to you in the best way possible.
My favorite part of programming is thinking about the whole system before I write a single line of code. How will my data be structured? What does the UI look like? How do I structure the project? What tools do I use? What do I need to take out to make this simpler? Etc.
I think hard about this with a notebook and a pencil and a coffee. And I spend weeks and sometimes months thinking about this. I go deep. And then the actual coding is just the grunt work. I don’t hate it but I don’t love it. I couldn’t care less what language is written in as long as it accomplishes my goal. So AI works great for me in this step.
I think you can still use AI and think deeply. It just depends on your mindset and how you use it.
Most software engineers were not “crafting” before AI. They were writing sloppy code for the sake of profit, getting a pay check, and going home. Which is why AI also outputs the same crappy code.
Rumor has it there were a few elite crafters among the lot. Software wizards who pondered about systems and architecture as they had a $10 espresso macchiato.
How does one go about deployment and backups with a local db? Like let’s say I have a web app hosted on a cloud service like App Engine or Elastic… if I redeploy my web app how do I make sure my current local db does not get get wiped? How are periodic backups handled?
I can think of many hacks to do this, but is there a best practice for this kind of stuff? I’m curious how people do this.
Im sure it was more like, “hey babe, can I get a few millions to go in the studio and experiment/make some art?” And then she was like, “yeah go for it! Make some weird shit.”
If I was in his position I’d probably be doing the same. Why bother with another top hit that pleases the masses.
Fair enough, but I disagree that it's a good question. "Explain it to me like I'm 5" (not even written out in words, just the abbreviation we all know) is not a curious place to come from, it is a desire for the quickest path to the end/payoff.
I took it to mean something like, "I won't understand an abstruse Ph.D.-level explanation of what happened. I need an explanation geared toward the layperson."
In fact, I think that's closer to the essence of ELI5--as opposed to literally explaining something at the 5 year old level.
I suppose you can quibble about using the initialism, ELI, but only if you're advocating for people who might be unfamiliar with its use. Otherwise, I don't understand your complaint.
I don't think that I am. I don't think that they want to be treated like they're 5, but I do think they don't want to put thought into it. We're training ourselves to offload critical thinking and I was surprised to see it driving the conversation here.
It's common, I know what it means. It communicated its intent properly, I think. It's surprising to me that a venture capital finance site would need to clarify the difference between value and wealth, and I would be interested in hearing questions about this, but "ELI5" doesn't even meet the basic criteria for being a question. It asks no questions.
Now I have this love/hate relationship with it. Claude Code is amazing. I use it everyday because it makes me so much more efficient at my job. But I also know that by using it I’m contributing to making my job redundant one day.
At the same time I see how much resources we are wasting on AI. And to what end? Does anybody really buy the BS that this will all make the world a better place one day? So many people we could shelter and feed, but instead we are spending it on trying to make your computer check and answer your emails for you. At what point do we just look up and ask… what is the damn purpose of all of this? I guess money.
reply