Just want to clarify, this is not my Substack, I’m just sharing this because I found it insightful.
The author describes himself as a “fractional CTO”(no clue what that means, don’t ask me) and advisor. His clients asked him how they could leverage AI. He decided to experience it for himself. From the author(emphasis mine):
I forced myself to use Claude Code exclusively to build a product. Three months. Not a single line of code written by me. I wanted to experience what my clients were considering—100% AI adoption. I needed to know firsthand why that 95% failure rate exists.
I got the product launched. It worked. I was proud of what I’d created. Then came the moment that validated every concern in that MIT study: I needed to make a small change and realized I wasn’t confident I could do it. My own product, built under my direction, and I’d lost confidence in my ability to modify it.
Now when clients ask me about AI adoption, I can tell them exactly what 100% looks like: it looks like failure. Not immediate failure—that’s the trap. Initial metrics look great. You ship faster. You feel productive. Then three months later, you realize nobody actually understands what you’ve built.
Personally I tried using LLMs for reading error logs and summarizing what’s going on. I can say that even with somewhat complex errors, they were almost always right and very helpful. So basically the general consensus of using them as assistants within a narrow scope.
Though it should also be noted that I only did this at work. While it seems to work well, I think I’d still limit such use in personal projects, since I want to keep learning more, and private projects are generally much more enjoyable to work on.
Another interesting use case I can highlight is using a chatbot as documentation when the actual documentation is horrible. However, this only works within the same ecosystem, so for instance Copilot with MS software. Microsoft definitely trained Copilot on its own stuff and it’s often considerably more helpful than the docs.
I do a lot with AI but it is not good enough to replace humans, not even close. It repeats the same mistakes after you tell it no, it doesn’t remember things from 3 messages ago when it should. You have to keep re-explaining the goal to it. It’s wholey incompetant. And yea when you have it do stuff you aren’t familiar with or don’t create, def. I have it write a commentary, or I take the time out right then to ask it what x or y does then I add a comment.
Even worse, the ones I’ve evaluated (like Claude) constantly fail to even compile because, for example, they mix usages of different SDK versions. When instructed to use version 3 of some package, it will add the right version as a dependency but then still code with missing or deprecated APIs from the previous version that are obviously unavailable.
More time (and money, and electricity) is wasted trying to prompt it towards correct code than simply writing it yourself and then at the end of the day you have a smoking turd that no one even understands.
LLMs are a dead end.
constantly fail to even compile because, for example, they mix usages of different SDK versions
Try an agentic tool like Claude Code - it closes the loop by testing the compilation for you, and fixing its mistakes (like human programmers do) before bothering you for another prompt. I was where you are at 6 months ago, the tools have improved dramatically since then.
From TFS > I needed to make a small change and realized I wasn’t confident I could do it. My own product, built under my direction, and I’d lost confidence in my ability to modify it.
That sounds like a “fractional CTO problem” to me (IMO a fractional CTO is a guy who convinces several small companies that he’s a brilliant tech genius who will help them make their important tech decisions without actually paying full-time attention to any of them. Actual tech experience: optional.)
If you have lost confidence in your ability to modify your own creation, that’s not a tools problem - you are the tool, that’s a you problem. It doesn’t matter if you’re using an LLM coding tool, or a team of human developers, or a pack of monkeys to code your applications, if you don’t document and test and formally develop an “understanding” of your product that not only you but all stakeholders can grasp to the extent they need to, you’re just letting the development run wild - lacking a formal software development process maturity. LLMs can do that faster than a pack of monkeys, or a bunch of kids you hired off Craigslist, but it’s the exact same problem no matter how you slice it.
The LLM comparison to a team of human developers is a great example. But like outsourcing your development, LLM is less a tool and more just delegation. And yes, you can dig in deep to understand all the stuff the LLM is delegated to do the same as you can get deeply involved with a human development team to maintain an understanding. But most of the time, the sell is that you can save time - which means you aren’t expecting to micro manage your development team.
It is a fractional CTO problem but the actual issue is that developers are being demanded to become fractional CTOs by using LLM because they are being measured by expected productivity increases that limit time for understanding.
thats an interesting take, developers are demanded to also become fractional CTO, there is probably a larger than estimated knowledge and experience gap there and unless you have the knack for managing people you probably run into more problems than you are used to normally being just a code jockey
the sell is that you can save time
How do you know when salespeople (and lawyers) are lying? It’s only when their lips are moving.
developers are being demanded to become fractional CTOs by using LLM because they are being measured by expected productivity increases that limit time for understanding.
That’s the kind of thing that works out in the end. Like outsourcing to Asia, etc. It does work for some cases, it can bring sustainable improvements to the bottom line, but nowhere near as fast or easy or cheaply as the people selling it say.
There’s no point telling it not to do x because as soon as you mention it x it goes into its context window.
It has no filter, it’s like if you had no choice in your actions, and just had to do every thought that came into your head, if you were told not to do a thing you would immediately start thinking about doing it.
I’ve noticed this too, it’s hilarious(ly bad).
Especially with image generation, which we were using to make some quick avatars for a D&D game. “Draw a picture of an elf.” Generates images of elves that all have one weird earring. “Draw a picture of an elf without an earing.” Great now the elves have even more earrings.
I find this kind of performance to vary from one model to the next. I definitely have experienced the bad image getting worse phenomenon - especially with MS Copilot - but different models will perform differently.
There’s no point telling it not to do x because as soon as you mention it x it goes into its context window.
Reminds me of the Sonny Bono high speed downhill skiing problem: don’t fixate on that tree, if you fixate on that tree you’re going to hit the tree, fixate on the open space to the side of the tree.
LLMs do “understand” words like not, and don’t, but they also seem to work better with positive examples than negative ones.
It looks like a rigid design philosophy that must completely rebuild for any change. If the speed of production becomes fast enough, and the cost low enough, iterating the entire program for every change would become feasible and cost effective.
I frequently feel that urge to rebuild from ground (specifications) up, to remove the “old bad code” from the context window and get back to the “pure” specification as the source of truth. That only works up to a certain level of complexity. When it works it can be a very fast way to “fix” a batch of issues, but when the problem/solution is big enough the new implementation will have new issues that may take longer to identify as compared with just grinding through the existing issues. Devil whose face you know kind of choice.
… as long as the giant corpos paying through the nose for the data centers continue to vastly underprice their products in order to make us all dependent on them.
Just wait till everyone’s using it and the prices will skyrocket.
They never actually say what “product” do they make, it’s always “shipped product” like they’re fucking amazon warehouse. I suspect because it’s some trivial webpage that takes an afternoon for a student to ship up, that they spent three days arguing with an autocomplete to shit out.
Cloudflare, AWS, and other recent major service outages are what come to mind re: AI code. I’ve no doubt it is getting forced into critical infrastructure without proper diligence.
Humans are prone to error so imagine the errors our digital progeny are capable of!
To quote your quote:
I got the product launched. It worked. I was proud of what I’d created. Then came the moment that validated every concern in that MIT study: I needed to make a small change and realized I wasn’t confident I could do it. My own product, built under my direction, and I’d lost confidence in my ability to modify it.
I think the author just independently rediscovered “middle management”. Indeed, when you delegate the gruntwork under your responsibility, those same people are who you go to when addressing bugs and new requirements. It’s not on you to effect repairs: it’s on your team. I am Jack’s complete lack of surprise. The idea that relying on AI to do nuanced work like this and arrive at the exact correct answer to the problem, is naive at best. I’d be sweating too.
The problem though (with AI compared to humans): The human team learns, i.e. at some point they probably know what the mistake was and avoids doing it again. AI instead of humans: well maybe the next or different model will fix it maybe…
And what is very clear to me after trying to use these models, the larger the code-base the worse the AI gets, to the point of not helping at all or even being destructive. Apart from dissecting small isolatable pieces of independent code (i.e. keep the context small for the AI).
Humans likely get slower with a larger code-base, but they (usually) don’t arrive at a point where they can’t progress any further.
Humans likely get slower with a larger code-base, but they (usually) don’t arrive at a point where they can’t progress any further.
Notable exceptions like: https://peimpact.com/the-denver-international-airport-automated-baggage-handling-system/
Just ask the ai to make the change?
AI isn’t good at changing code, or really even understanding it… It’s good at writing it, ideally 50-250 lines at a time
It’s good at writing it, ideally 50-250 lines at a time
I find Claude Sonnet 4.5 to be good up to 800 lines at a chunk. If you structure your project into 800ish line chunks with well defined interfaces you can get 8 to 10 chunks working cooperatively pretty easily. Beyond about 2000 lines in a chunk, if it’s not well defined, yeah - the hallucinations start to become seriously problematic.
The new Opus 4.5 may have a higher complexity limit, I haven’t really worked with it enough to characterize… I do find Opus 4.5 to get much slower than Sonnet 4.5 was for similar problems.
I’m just not following the mindset of “get ai to code your whole program” and then have real people maintain it? Sounds counter productive
I think you need to make your code for an Ai to maintain. Use Static code analysers like SonarQube to ensure that the code is maintainable (cognitive complexity)!and that functions are small and well defined as you write it.
I don’t think we should be having the AI write the program in the first place. I think we’re barreling towards a place where remotely complicated software becomes a lost technology
I don’t mind if AI helps here and there, I certainly use it. But it’s not good at custom fit solutions, and the world currently runs on custom fit solutions
AI is like no code solutions. Yeah, it’s powerful, easier to learn and you can do a lot with it… But eventually you will hit a limit. You’ll need to do something the system can’t do, or something you can’t make the system do because no one properly understands what you’ve built
At the end of the day, coding is a skill. If no one is building the required experience to work with complex systems, we’re going to be swimming in a world of endless ocean of vibe coded legacy apps in a decade
I just don’t buy that AI will be able to take something like a set of State regulations and build a complaint outcome. Most of our base digital infrastructure is like that, or it uses obscure ancient systems that LLMs are basically allergic to working with
To me, we’re risking everything on achieving AGI (and using it responsibly) before we run out of skilled workers, and we’re several game changing breakthroughs from achieving that
I think we’re barreling towards a place where remotely complicated software becomes a lost technology
I think complicated software has been an art more than a science, for the past 30 years we have been developing formal processes to make it more of a procedural pursuit but the art is still very much in there.
I think if AI authored software is going to reach any level of valuable complexity, it’s going to get there with the best of our current formal processes plus some more that are being (rapidly) developed specifically for LLM based tools.
But eventually you will hit a limit. You’ll need to do something…
And how do we surpass those limits? Generally: research. And for the past 20+ years where do we do most of that research? On the internet. And where were the LLMs trained, and what are they relatively good at doing quickly? Internet research.
At the end of the day, coding is a skill. If no one is building the required experience to work with complex systems
So is semiconductor design, application of transistors to implement logic gates, etc. We still have people who can do that, not very many, but enough. Not many people work in assembly language anymore, either…
I’ve made full-ass changes on existing codebases with Claude
It’s a skill you can learn, pretty close to how you’d work with actual humans
pretty close to how you’d work with actual humans
That has been my experience as well. It’s like working with humans who have extremely fast splinter skills, things they can rip through in 10 minutes that might take you days, weeks even. But then it also takes 5-10 minutes to do some things that you might accomplish in 20 seconds. And, like people, it’s not 100% reliable or accurate, so you need to use all those same processes we have developed to help people catch their mistakes.
What full ass changes have you made that can’t be done better with a refactoring tool?
I believe Claude will accept the task. I’ve been fixing edge cases in a vibe colleague’s full-ass change all month. Would have taken less time to just do it right the first time.
True that LLMs will accept almost any task, whether they should or not. True that their solutions aren’t 100% perfect every time. Whether it’s faster to use them or not I think depends a lot on what’s being done, and what alternative set of developers you’re comparing them with.
What I have seen across the past year is that the number of cases where LLM based coding tools are faster than traditional developers has been increasing, rather dramatically. I called them near useless this time last year.
It’s a skill this “fractional CTO” lacks
full-ass (…) with Claude
heh
I don’t know shit about anything, but it seems to me that the AI already thought it gave you the best answer, so going back to the problem for a proper answer is probably not going to work. But I’d try it anyway, because what do you have to lose?
Unless it gets pissed off at being questioned, and destroys the world. I’ve seen more than few movies about that.
AI already thought it gave you the best answer, so going back to the problem for a proper answer is probably not going to work.
There’s an LLM concept/parameter called “temperature” that determines basically how random the answer is.
As deployed, LLMs like Claude Sonnet or Opus have a temperature that won’t give the same answer every time, and when you combine this with feedback loops that point out failures (like compliers that tell the LLM when its code doesn’t compile), the LLM can (and does) the old Beckett: try, fail, try again, fail again, fail better next time - and usually reach a solution that passes all the tests it is aware of.
The problem is: with a context window limit of 200,000 tokens, it’s not going to be aware of all the relevant tests in more complex cases.
You are in a way correct. If you keep sending the context of the “conversation” (in the same chat) it will reinforce its previous implementation.
The way ais remember stuff is that you just give it the entire thread of context together with your new question. It’s all just text in text out.
But once you start a new conversation (meaning you don’t give any previous chat history) it’s essentially a “new” ai which didn’t know anything about your project.
This will have a new random seed and if you ask that to look for mistakes etc it will happily tell you that the last Implementation was all wrong and here’s how to fix it.
It’s like a minecraft world, same seed will get you the same map every time. So with AIs it’s the same thing ish. start a new conversation or ask a different model (gpt, Google, Claude etc) and it will do things in a new way.
Doesn’t work. Any semi complex problem with multiple constraints and your team of AIs keeps running circles. Very frustrating if you know it can be done. But what if you’re a “fractional CTO” and you get actually contradictory constraints? We haven’t gotten yet to AIs who will tell you that what you ask is impossible.
your team of AIs keeps running circles
Depending on your team of human developers (and managers), they will do the same thing. Granted, most LLMs have a rather extreme sycophancy problem, but humans often do the same.
We haven’t gotten yet to AIs who will tell you that what you ask is impossible.
If it’s a problem like under or over-constrained geometry or equations, they (the better ones) will tell you. For difficult programing tasks I have definitely had the AIs bark up all the wrong trees trying to fix something until I gave them specific direction for where to look for a fix (very much like my experiences with some human developers over the years.)
I had a specific task that I was developing in one model, and it was a hard problem but I was making progress and could see the solution was near, then I switched to a different model which did come back and tell me “this is impossible, you’re doing it wrong, you must give up this approach” up until I showed it the results I had achieved to-date with the other model, then that same model which told me it was impossible helped me finish the job completely and correctly. A lot like people.
Yeah right now you have to know what’s possible and nudge the ai in the right direction to use the correct approach according to you if you want it to do things in an optimized way
Maybe the solution is to keep sending the code through various AI requests, until it either gets polished up, or gains sentience, and destroys the world. 50-50 chance.
This stuff ALWAYS ends up destroying the world on TV.
Seriously, everybody is complaining about the quality of AI product, but the whole point is for this stuff to keep learning and improving. At this stage, we’re expecting a kindergartener to product the work of a Harvard professor. Obviously, were going to be disappointed.
But give that kindergartener time to learn and get better, and they’ll end up a Harvard professor, too. AI may just need time to grow up.
And frankly, that’s my biggest worry. If it can eventually start producing results that are equal or better than most humans, then the Sociopathic Oligarchs won’t need worker humans around, wasting money that could be in their bank accounts.
And we know what their solution to that problem will be.
This stuff ALWAYS ends up destroying the world on TV.
TV is also full of infinite free energy sources. In the real world warp drive may be possible, you just need to annihilate the mass of Jupiter with an equivalent mass of antimatter to get the energy necessary to create a warp bubble to move a small ship from the orbit of Pluto to a location a few light years away, but on TV they do it every week.
Sounds like we have a plan, let’s get to work. The Cochran Warp Drive isn’t going to invent itself.
Same thing would happen if they were a non-coder project manager or designer for a team of actual human progress.
Stuff done, shipped and working.
“But I can’t understand the code 😭”, yes. You were the project manager why should you?
I think the point is that someone should understand the code. In this case, no one does.
I think the point is that someone should understand the code. In this case, no one does.
Big corporations have been pushing for outsourcing software development for decades, how is this any different? Can you always recall your outsourced development team for another round of maintenance? A LLM may actually be more reliable and accessible in the future.
If you outsource you could at least sure them when things go wrong. Good luck doing that with AI.
Plus you can own the code if a person does it.
If you outsource you could at least sure them when things go wrong.
Most outsourcing consultants I have worked with aren’t worth the legal fees to attempt to sue.
Plus you can own the code if a person does it.
I’m not aware of any ownership issues with code I have developed using Claude, or any other agents. It’s still mine, all the more so because I paid Claude to write it for me, at my direction.
AI doesn’t get IP protections.
Nobody is asking it to (except freaks trying to get news coverage.)
It’s like compiler output - no, I didn’t write that assembly code, gcc did, but it did it based on my instructions. My instructions are copyright by me, the gcc interpretation of them is a derivative work covered by my rights in the source code.
When a painter paints a canvas, they don’t record the “source code” but the final work is also still theirs, not the brush maker or the canvas maker or paint maker (though some pigments get a little squirrely about that…)
So…like dealing with Oracle.
I cannot understand and debug code written by AI. But I also cannot understand and debug code written by me.
Let’s just call it even.
I also cannot understand and debug code written by me.
So much this. I look back at stuff I wrote 10 years ago and shake my head, console myself that “we were on a really aggressive schedule.” At least in my mind I can do better, in practice the stuff has got to ship eventually and what ships is almost never what I would call perfect, or even ideal.
At least you can blame yourself for your own shitty code, which hopefully will never attempt to “accidentally” erase the entire project
I don’t know how that happens, I regularly use Claude code and it’s constantly reminding me to push to git.
As an experiment I asked Claude to manage my git commits, it wrote the messages, kept a log, archived excess documentation, and worked really well for about 2 weeks. Then, as the project got larger, the commit process was taking longer and longer to execute. I finally pulled the plug when the automated commit process - which had performed flawlessly for dozens of commits and archives, accidentally irretrievably lost a batch of work - messed up the archive process and deleted it without archiving it first, didn’t commit it either.
AI/LLM workflows are non-deterministic. This means: they make mistakes. If you want something reliable, scalable, repeatable, have the AI write you code to do it deterministically as a tool, not as a workflow. Of course, deterministic tools can’t do things like summarize the content of a commit.
The longer the project the more stupid Claude gets. I’ve seen it both in chat, and in Claude code, and Claude explains the situation quite well:
Increased cognitive load: Longer projects have more state to track - more files, more interconnected components, more conventions established earlier. Each decision I make needs to consider all of this, and the probability of overlooking something increases with complexity.
Git specifically: For git operations, the problem is even worse because git state is highly sequential - each operation depends on the exact current state of the repository. If I lose track of what branch we’re on, what’s been committed, or what files exist, I’ll give incorrect commands.
Anything I do with Claude. I will split into different chats, I won’t give it access to git but I will provide it an updated repository via Repomix. I get much better results because of that.
Yeah, context management is one big key. The “compacting conversation” hack is a good one, you can continue conversations indefinitely, but after each compact it will throw away some context that you thought was valuable.
The best explanation I have heard for the current limitations is that there is a “context sweet spot” for Opus 4.5 that’s somewhere short of 200,000 tokens. As your context window gets filled above 100,000 tokens, at some point you’re at “optimal understanding” of whatever is in there, then as you continue on toward 200,000 tokens the hallucinations start to increase. As a hack, they “compact the conversation” and throw out less useful tokens getting you back to the “essential core” of what you were discussing before, so you can continue to feed it new prompts and get new reactions with a lower hallucination rate, but with that lower hallucination rate also comes a lower comprehension of what you said before the compacting event(s).
Some describe an aspect of this as the “lost in the middle” phenomenon since the compacting event tends to hang on to the very beginning and very end of the context window more aggressively than the middle, so more “middle of the window” content gets dropped during a compacting event.
AI is really great for small apps. I’ve saved so many hours over weekends that would otherwise be spent coding a small thing I need a few times whereas now I can get an AI to spit it out for me.
But anything big and it’s fucking stupid, it cannot track large projects at all.
I don’t really agree, I think that’s kind of a problem with approaching it. I’ve built some pretty large projects with AI, but the thing is, you have to approach it the same way you should be approaching larger projects to begin with - you need to break it down into smaller steps/parts.
You don’t tell it “build me an entire project that does X, Y, Z, and A, B, C”, you have to tackle it one part at a time.
What kind of small things have you vibed out that you needed?
I have a little display on the back of a Raspberry Pi Zero W - it recoded that display software to refresh 5x faster, and it updated the content source to move from Meteomatics (who just discontinued their free API) to the National Weather Service.
FWIW that’s a good question but IMHO the better question is :
What kind of small things have you vibed out that you needed that didn’t actually exist or at least you couldn’t find after a 5min search on open source forges like CodeBerg, Gitblab, Github, etc?
Because making something quick that kind of works is nice… but why even do so in the first place if it’s already out there, maybe maintained but at least tested?
making something quick that kind of works is nice… but why even do so in the first place if it’s already out there, maybe maintained but at least tested?
In a sense, this is what LLMs are doing for you: regurgitating stuff that’s already out there. But… they are “bright” enough to remix the various bits into custom solutions. So there might already be a NWS API access app example, and a Waveshare display example, and so on, but there’s not a specific example that codes up a local weather display for the time period and parameters you want to see (like, temperature and precipitation every 15 minutes for the next 12 hours at a specific location) on the particular display you have. Oh, and would you rather build that in C++ instead of Python? Yeah, LLMs are actually pretty good at remixing little stuff like that into things you’re not going to find exact examples of ready to your spec.
I built a MAL clone using AI, nearly 700 commits of AI. Obviously I was responsible for the quality of the output and reviewing and testing that it all works as expected, and leading it in the right direction when going down the wrong path, but it wrote all of the code for me.
There are other MAL clones out there, but none of them do everything I wanted, so that’s why I built my own project. It started off as an inside joke with a friend, and eventually materialized as an actual production-ready project. It’s limited more by design of the fact that it relies on database imports and delta edits rather than the fact that it was written by AI, because that’s just the nature of how data for these types of things tend to work.
Since you put such emphasis on “better”: I’d still like to have an answer to the one I posed.
Yours would be a reasonable follow-up question if we noticed that their vibed projects are utilities already available in the ecosystem. 👍
Sure, you’re right, I just worry (maybe needlessly) about people re-inventing the wheel because it’s “easier” than searching without properly understand the cost of the entire process.
people re-inventing the wheel because it’s “easier” than searching without properly understand the cost of the entire process.
A good LLM will do a web search first and copy its answer from there…
@MangoCats @utopiah exactly this… i did some small stuff out lf pastoring llms, but first searched for what I need, usually I find a small repo that kind of do what I want, then I clone it, change it a but using help of llm and if i think it is usefull I open a PR and let the mantainer decide if its good or not
Very valid!
What if I can find it but it’s either shit or bloated for my needs?
Open an issue to explain why it’s not enough for you? If you can make a PR for it that actually implements the things you need, do it?
My point to say everything is already out there and perfectly fits your need, only that a LOT is already out there. If all re-invent the wheel in our own corner it’s basically impossible to learn from each other.
There have been some articles published positing that AI coding tools spell the end for FOSS because everybody is just going to do stuff independently and don’t need to share with each other anymore to get things done.
I think those articles are short sighted, and missing the real phenomenon that the FOSS community needs each other now more than ever in order to tame the LLMs into being able to write stories more interesting than “See Spot run.” and the equivalent in software projects.
And if the maintainer doesn’t agree to merge your changes, what to you do then?
You have to build your own project, where you get to decide what gets added and what doesn’t.
These are the principles I follow:
https://indieweb.org/make_what_you_need
https://indieweb.org/use_what_you_make
I don’t have time to argue with FOSS creators to get my stuff in their projects, nor do I have the energy to maintain a personal fork of someone else’s work.
It’s much faster for me to start up Claude and code a very bespoke system just for my needs.
I don’t like web UIs nor do I want to run stuff in a Docker container. I just want a scriptable CLI application.
Like I just did a subtitle translation tool in 2-3 nights that produces much better quality than any of the ready made solutions I found on GitHub. One of which was an *arr stack web monstrosity and the other was a GUI application.
Neither did what I needed in the level of quality I want, so I made my own. One I can automate like I want and have running on my own server.
I don’t have time to argue with FOSS creators to get my stuff in their projects
So much this. Over the years I have found various issues in FOSS and “done the right thing” submitting patches formatted just so into their own peculiar tracking systems according to all their own peculiar style and traditions, only to have the patches rejected for all kinds of arbitrary reasons - to which I say: “fine, I don’t really want our commercial competitors to have this anyway, I was just trying to be a good citizen in the community. I’ve done my part, you just go on publishing buggy junk - that’s fine.”
So the claim is it’s easier to Claudge a whole new app than to make a personal fork of one that works? Sounds unlikely.
Depends entirely on the app.
So if it can be vibe coded, it’s pretty much certainly already a “thing”, but with some awkwardness.
Maybe what you need is a combination of two utilities, maybe the interface is very awkward for your use case, maybe you have to make a tiny compromise because it doesn’t quite match.
Maybe you want a little utility to do stuff with media. Now you could navigate your way through ffmpeg and mkvextract, which together handles what you want, with some scripting to keep you from having to remember the specific way to do things in the myriad of stuff those utilities do. An LLM could probably knock that script out for you quickly without having to delve too deeply into the documentation for the projects.
I’ll put it this way: LLMs have been getting pretty good at translation over the past 20 years. Sure, human translators still look down their noses at “automated translations” but, in the real world, an automated translation gets the job done well enough most of the time.
LLMs are also pretty good at translating code, say from C++ to Rust. Not million line code bases, but the little concepts they can do pretty well.
On a completely different tack, I’ve been pretty happy with LLM generated parsers. Like: I’ve got 1000 log files here, and I want to know how many times these lines appear. You’ve got grep for that. But, write me a utility that finds all occurrences of these lines, reads the time stamps, and then searches for any occurrences of these other lines within +/- 1 minute of the first ones… grep can’t really do that, but a 5 minute vibe coded parser can.
If I understand correctly then this means mostly adapting the interface?
It’s certainly a use case that LLM has a decent shot at.
Of course, having said that I gave it a spin with Gemini 3 and it just hallucinated a bunch of crap that doesn’t exist instead of properly identifying capable libraries or frontending media tools…
But in principle and upon occasion it can take care of little convenience utilities/functions like that. I continue to have no idea though why some people seem to claim to be able to ‘vibe code’ up anything of significance, even as I thought I was giving it an easy hit it completely screwed it up…
I tried using Gemini 3 for OpenSCAD, and it couldn’t slice a solid properly to save its life, I gave up on it after about 6 attempts to put a 3:12 slope shed roof on four walls. Same job in Opus 4.5 and I’ve got a very nicely styled 600 square foot floor plan with radiused 3D concrete printed walls, windows, doors, shed roof with 1’ overhang, and a python script that translates the .scad to a good looking .svg 2D floorplan.
I’m sure Gemini 3 is good for other things, but Opus 4.5 makes it look infantile in 3D modeling.
Having used both Gemini and Claude… I use Gemini when I need to quickly find something I don’t want to waste time searching for, or I need a recipe found and then modified to fit what I have on hand.
Everytime I used Gemini for coding has ended in failure. It constantly forgets things, forgets what version of a package you’re using so it tells you to do something that is deprecated, it was hell. I had to hold its hand the entire time and talk to it like it’s a stupid child.
Claude just works. I use Claude for so many things both chat and API. I didn’t care for AI until I tried Claude. There’s a whole whack of novels by a Russian author I like but they stopped translating the series. Claude vibe coded an app to read the Russian ebooks, translate them by chapter in a way that prevented context bleed. I can read any book in any language for about $2.50 in API tokens.
I’ve been using Claude to mediocre results, so this time I used Gemini 3 because everyone in my company is screaming “this time it works, trust us bro”. Claude has not been working so great for me for my day job either.
Encryption, login systems and pricing algorithms. Just the small annoying things /s
I’m curious about that too since you can “create” most small applications with a few lines of Bash, pipes, and all the available tools on Linux.
Depends on how demanding you are about your application deployment and finishing.
Do you want that running on an embedded system with specific display hardware?
Do you want that output styled a certain way?
AI/LLM are getting pretty good at taking those few lines of Bash, pipes and other tools’ concepts, translating them to a Rust, or C++, or Python, or what have you app and running them in very specific environments. I have been shocked at how quickly and well Claude Sonnet styled an interface for me, based on a cell phone snap shot of a screen that I gave it with the prompt “style the interface like this.”
Maybe they don’t run Linux. 🤭
Perverts!
Not OP but I made a little menu thing for launching VMs and a script for grabbing trailers for downloaded movies that reads the name of the folder, finds the trailer and uses yt-dlp to grab it, puts it in the folder and renames it.
Definitely sounds like a tiny shell script but yeah, I guess it’s seconds with an agent rather than a few minutes with manual coding 👍
Yeah pretty much! TBH for the first one there are already things online that can do that, I just wanted to test how the AI would do so I gave it a simple thing, it worked well and so I kept using it. The second one I wasn’t sure about because it’s a bit copyright-y, but yeah like you say it was just quicker. I wouldn’t use the AI for anything super important, but I figured it’d do for a quick little script that only needs to do one specific thing just for me.
I would need to inspect every line of that shit before using it. I’d be too scared that it would delete my entire library, like that dude who got their entire drive erased by Google Antigravity…
Yeah that’s fair. And mine were pretty small scripts so easy enough to check, and I keep proper backups and whatnot so no big deal. But like I say I wouldn’t use it for anything big or important.
It never seconds. The first three versions will don’t do what you want (or not work at all), so you will end up arguing with this shit for significant amount of time without realising it
😅
Great article, brave and correct. Good luck getting the same leaders who blindly believe in a magical trend for this or next quarters numbers; they don’t care about things a year away let alone 10.
I work in HR and was stuck by the parallel between management jobs being gutted by major corps starting in the 80s and 90s during “downsizing” who either never replaced them or offshore them. They had the Big 4 telling them it was the future of business. Know who is now providing consultation to them on why they have poor ops, processes, high turnover, etc? Take $ on the way in, and the way out. AI is just the next in long line of smart people pretending they know your business while you abdicate knowing your business or employees.
Hope leaders can be a bit braver and wiser this go 'round so we don’t get to a cliffs edge in software.
Tbh I think the true leaders are high on coke.
Wow I didn’t know that I was leading this whole time.
Exactly. The problem isn’t moving part of production to some other facility or buying a part that you used to make in-house. It’s abdicating an entire process that you need to be involved in if you’re going to stay on top of the game long-term.
Claude Code is awesome but if you let it do even 30% of the things it offers to do, then it’s not going to be your code in the end.
I’m trying
Much appreciated 🫡
Not immediate failure—that’s the trap. Initial metrics look great. You ship faster. You feel productive.
And all they’ll hear is “not failure, metrics great, ship faster, productive” and go against your advice because who cares about three months later, that’s next quarter, line must go up now. I also found this bit funny:
I forced myself to use Claude Code exclusively to build a product. Three months. Not a single line of code written by me… I was proud of what I’d created.
Well you didn’t create it, you said so yourself, not sure why you’d be proud, it’s almost like the conclusion should’ve been blindingly obvious right there.
yeah i don’t get why the ai can’t do the changes
don’t you just feed it all the code and tell it? i thought that was the point of 100% AI
The top comment on the article points that out.
It’s an example of a far older phenomenon: Once you automate something, the corresponding skill set and experience atrophy. It’s a problem that predates LLMs by quite a bit. If the only experience gained is with the automated system, the skills are never acquired. I’ll have to find it but there’s a story about a modern fighter jet pilot not being able to handle a WWII era Lancaster bomber. They don’t know how to do the stuff that modern warplanes do automatically.
It’s more like the ancient phenomenon of spaghetti code. You can throw enough code at something until it works, but the moment you need to make a non-trivial change, you’re doomed. You might as well throw away the entire code base and start over.
And if you want an exact parallel, I’ve said this from the beginning, but LLM coding at this point is the same as offshore coding was 20 years ago. You make a request, get a product that seems to work, but maintaining it, even by the same people who created it in the first place, is almost impossible.
Indeed… Throw-away code is currently where AI coding excels. And that is cool and useful - creating one off scripts, self-contained modules automating boilerplate, etc.
You can’t quite use it the same way for complex existing code bases though… Not yet, at least…
Yes, that exactly how I use cursor and local llms. There a ton of cases, where you need one time script to prepare data/sort thru data/fetch data via API, etc. Even something simple like adding role on discord channel (god save you, if your company uses that piece of crap for communication), that can be done with script too, especially if you need to add role to thousands of users, for example. Of course, it can be done properly by normal development cycle, but that expensive, while shitcoding thru cursor can be done by anyone.
The thing about this perspective is that I think its actually overly positive about LLMs, as it frames them as just the latest in a long line of automations.
Not all automations are created equal. For example, compare using a typewriter to using a text editor. Besides a few details about the ink ribbon and movement mechanisms you really haven’t lost much in the transition. This is despite the fact that the text editor can be highly automated with scripts and hot keys, allowing you to manipulate even thousands of pages of text at once in certain ways. Using a text editor certainly won’t make you forget how to write like using ChatGPT will.
I think the difference lies in the relationship between the person and the machine. To paraphrase Cathode Ray Dude, people who are good at using computers deduce the internal state of the machine, mirror (a subset of) that state as a mental model, and use that to plan out their actions to get the desired result. People that aren’t good at using computers generally don’t do this, and might not even know how you would start trying to.
For years ‘user friendly’ software design has catered to that second group, as they are both the largest contingent of users and the ones that needed the most help. To do this software vendors have generally done two things: try to move the necessary mental processes from the user’s brain into the computer and hide the computer’s internal state (so that its not implied that the user has to understand it, so that a user that doesn’t know what they’re doing won’t do something they’ll regret, etc). Unfortunately this drives that first group of people up the wall. Not only does hiding the internal state of the computer make it harder to deduce, every “smart” feature they add to try to move this mental process into the computer itself only makes the internal state more complex and harder to model.
Many people assume that if this is the way you think about software you are just an elistist gatekeeper, and you only want your group to be able to use computers. Or you might even be accused of ableism. But the real reason is what I described above, even if its not usually articulated in that way.
Now, I am of the opinion that the ‘mirroring the internal state’ method of thinking is the superior way to interact with machines, and the approach to user friendliness I described has actually done a lot of harm to our relationship with computers at a societal level. (This is an opinion I suspect many people here would agree with.) And yet that does not mean that I think computers should be difficult to use. Quite the opposite, I think that modern computers are too complicated, and that in an ideal world their internal states and abstractions would be much simpler and more elegant, but no less powerful. (Elaborating on that would make this comment even longer though.) Nor do I think that computers shouldn’t be accessible to people with different levels of ability. But just as a random person in a store shouldn’t grab a wheelchair user’s chair handles and start pushing them around, neither should Windows (for example) start changing your settings on updates without asking.
Anyway, all of this is to say that I think LLMs are basically the ultimate in that approach to ‘user friendliness’. They try to move more of your thought process into the machine than ever before, their internal state is more complex than ever before, and it is also more opaque than ever before. They also reflect certain values endemic to the corporate system that produced them: that the appearance of activity is more important than the correctness or efficacy of that activity. (That is, again, a whole other comment though.) The result is that they are extremely mind numbing, in the literal sense of the phrase.
I agree with you, though proponents will tell you that’s by design. Supposedly, it’s like with high-level languages. You don’t need to know the actual instructions in assembly anymore to write a program with them. I think the difference is that high-level language instructions are still (mostly) deterministic, while an LLM prompt certaily isn’t.
Yep, thats the key issue that so many people fail to understand. They want AI to be deterministic but it simply isnt. Its like expecting a human to get the right answer to any possible question, its just not going to happen. The only thing we can do is bring error rates with ai lower than a human doing the same task, and it will be at that point that the ai becomes useful. But even at that point there will always be the alignment issue and nondeterminism, meaning ai will never behave exactly the way we want or expect it to.
Once you automate something, the corresponding skill set and experience atrophy. It’s a problem that predates LLMs by quite a bit. If the only experience gained is with the automated system, the skills are never acquired.
Well, to be fair, different skills are acquired. You’ve learned how to create automated systems, that’s definitely a skill. In one of my IT jobs there were a lot of people who did things manually, updated computers, installed software one machine at a time. But when someone figures out how to automate that, push the update to all machines in the room simultaneously, that’s valuable and not everyone in that department knew how to do it.
So yeah, I guess my point is, you can forget how to do things the old way, but that’s not always bad. Like, so you don’t really know how to use a scythe, that’s fine if you have a tractor, and trust me, you aren’t missing much.
I forced myself to use Claude Code exclusively to build a product. Three months. Not a single line of code written by me… I was proud of what I’d created.
Well you didn’t create it, you said so yourself, not sure why you’d be proud, it’s almost like the conclusion should’ve been blindingly obvious right there.
Does a director create the movie? They don’t usually edit it, they don’t have to act in it, nor do all directors write movies. Yet the person giving directions is seen as the author.
The idea is that vibe coding is like being a director or architect. I mean that’s the idea. In reality it seems it doesn’t really pan out.
Wrong, it’s just outsourcing.
You’re making a false-equivalence. A director is actively doing their job; they’re a puppeteer and the rest is their puppet. The puppeteer is not outsourcing his job to a puppet.
And I’m pretty sure you don’t know what architects do.
If I hire a coder to write an app for me, whether it’s a clanker or a living being, I’m outsourcing the work; I’m a manager.
It’s like tasking an artist to write a poem for you about love and flowers, and being proud about that poem.
You can vibe write and vibe edit a movie now too. They also turn out shit.
The issue is that llm isnt a person with skills and knowledge. Its a complex guessing box that gets thing kinda right, but not actually right, and it absolutely cant tell whats right or not. It has no actual skills or experience or humainty that a director can expect a writer or editor to have.
What’s impressive about LLM is how good it is at sounding right.
Just makes me think of this character from Adventure Time
What season they from? I thought I’d seen most of it but don’t recall them
This is from season 1 episode 18, titled “Dungeon”
I think this kinda points to why AI is pretty decent for short videos, photos, and texts. It produces outputs that one applies meaning to, and humans are meaning making animals. A computer can’t overlook or rationalize a coding error the same way.
so the obvious solution is to just have humans execute our code manually. Grab a pen and some crayons, go through it step by step and write variable values on the paper and draw the interface with the crayons and show it on a webcam or something. And they can fill in the gaps with what they think the code in question is supposed to do. easy!
Fractional CTO: Some small companies benefit from the senior experience of these kinds of executives but don’t have the money or the need to hire one full time. A fraction of the time they are C suite for various companies.
Sooo… he works multiple part-time jobs?
Weird how a forced technique of the ultra-poor is showing up here.
It’s more like the MSP IT style of business. There are clients that consult you for your experience or that you spend a contracted amount of time with and then you bill them for your time as a service. You aren’t an employee of theirs.
Or he’s some deputy assistant vice president or something.
Deputy assistant to the vice president
So there’s actual developers who could tell you from the start that LLMs are useless for coding, and then there’s this moron & similar people who first have to fuck up an ecosystem before believing the obvious. Thanks fuckhead for driving RAM prices through the ceiling… And for wasting energy and water.
I can least kinda appreciate this guy’s approach. If we assume that AI is a magic bullet, then it’s not crazy to assume we, the existing programmers, would resist it just to save our own jobs. Or we’d complain because it doesn’t do things our way, but we’re the old way and this is the new way. So maybe we’re just being whiny and can be ignored.
So he tested it to see for himself, and what he found was that he agreed with us, that it’s not worth it.
Ignoring experts is annoying, but doing some of your own science and getting first-hand experience isn’t always a bad idea.
And not only did he see for himself, he wrote up and published his results.
Yup. This was almost science. It’s just lacking measurements and repeatablity.
100% this. The guy was literally a consultant and a developer. It’d just be bad business for him to outright dismiss AI without having actual hands on experience with said product. Clients want that type of experience and knowledge when paying a business to give them advice and develop a product for them.
Except that outright dismissing snake oil would not at all be bad business. Calling a turd a diamond neither makes it sparkle, nor does it get rid of the stink.
I can’t just call everything snake oil without some actual measurements and tests.
Naive cynicism is just as naive as blind optimism
I can’t just call everything snake oil without some actual measurements and tests.
With all due respect, you have not understood the basic mechanic of machine learning and the consequences thereof.
With due respect, you have not understood how snake oil is detected.
Problem is that statistical word prediction has fuck-all to do with AI. It’s not and will never be. By “giving it a try” you contribute to the spread of this snake oil. And even if someone came up with actual AI, if it used enough resources to impact our ecosystem, instead of being a net positive, and if it was in the greedy hands of billionaires, then using it is equivalent to selling your executioner an axe.
Terrible take. Thanks for playing.
It’s actually impressive the level of downvotes you’ve gathered in what is generally a pretty anti-ai crowd.
They are useful for doing the kind of boilerplate boring stuff that any good dev should have largely optimized and automated already. If it’s 1) dead simple and 2) extremely common, then yeah an LLM can code for you, but ask yourself why you don’t have a time-saving solution for those common tasks already in place? As with anything LLM, it’s decent at replicating how humans in general have responded to a given problem, if the problem is not too complex and not too rare, and not much else.
Thats exactly what I so often find myself saying when people show off some neat thing that a code bot “wrote” for them in x minutes after only y minutes of “prompt engineering”. I’ll say, yeah I could also do that in y minutes of (bash scripting/vim macroing/system architecting/whatever), but the difference is that afterwards I have a reusable solution that: I understand, is automated, is robust, and didn’t consume a ton of resources. And as a bonus I got marginally better as a developer.
Its funny that if you stick them in an RPG and give them an ability to “kill any level 1-x enemy instantly, but don’t gain any xp for it” they’d all see it as the trap it is, but can’t see how that’s what AI so often is.
As you said, “boilerplate” code can be script generated - and there are IDEs that already do this, but in a deterministic way, so that you don’t have to proof-read every single line to avoid catastrophic security or crash flaws.
And then there are actual good developers who could or would tell you that LLMs can be useful for coding, in the right context and if used intelligently. No harm, for example, in having LLMs build out some of your more mundane code like unit/integration tests, have it help you update your deployment pipeline, generate boilerplate code that’s not already covered by your framework, etc. That it’s not able to completely write 100% of your codebase perfectly from the get-go does not mean it’s entirely useless.
If it’s boilerplate, copy/paste; find/replace works just as well without needing data centers in the desert to develop.
Other than that it’s work that junior coders could be doing, to develop the next generation of actual good developers.
Yes, and that’s exactly what everyone forgets about automating cognitive work. Knowledge or skill needs to be intergenerational or we lose it.
If you have no junior developers, who will turn into senior developers later on?
If you have no junior developers, who will turn into senior developers later on?
At least it isn’t my problem. As long as I have CrowdStrike, Cloudflare, Windows11, AWS us-east-1 and log4j… I can just keep enjoying today’s version of the Internet, unchanged.
AI, duh.
Al is a pretty good guy but he can’t be everywhere. Maybe he can use some A.I. to help!
And then there are actual good developers who could or would tell you that LLMs can be useful for coding
The only people who believe that are managers and bad developers.
You’re wrong, whether you figure that out now or later. Using an LLM where you gatekeep every write is something that good developers have started doing. The most senior engineers I work with are the ones who have adopted the most AI into their workflow, and with the most care. There’s a difference between vibe coding and responsible use.
There’s a difference between vibe coding and responsible use.
There’s also a difference between the occasional evening getting drunk and alcoholism. That doesn’t make an occasional event healthy, nor does it mean you are qualified to drive a car in that state.
People who use LLMs in production code are - by definition - not “good developers”. Because:
- a good developer has a clear grasp on every single instruction in the code - and critically reviewing code generated by someone else is more effort than writing it yourself
- pushing code to production without critical review is grossly negligent and compromises data & security
This already means the net gain with use of LLMs is negative. Can you use it to quickly push out some production code & impress your manager? Possibly. Will it be efficient? It might be. Will it be bug-free and secure? You’ll never know until shit hits the fan.
Also: using LLMs to generate code, a dev will likely be violating copyrights of open source left and right, effectively copy-pasting licensed code from other people without attributing authorship, i.e. they exhibit parasitic behavior & outright violate laws. Furthermore the stuff that applies to all users of LLMs applies:
- they contribute to the hype, fucking up our planet, causing brain rot and skill loss on average, and pumping hardware prices to insane heights.
You’re pushing code to prod without pr’s and code reviews? What kind of jank-ass cowboy shop are you running?
It doesn’t matter if an llm or a human wrote it, it needs peer review, unit tests and go through QA before it gets anywhere near production.
We have substantially similar opinions, actually. I agree on your points of good developers having a clear grasp over all of their code, ethical issues around AI (not least of which are licensing issues), skill loss, hardware prices, etc.
However, what I have observed in practice is different from the way you describe LLM use. I have seen irresponsible use, and I have seen what I personally consider to be responsible use. Responsible use involves taking a measured and intentional approach to incorporating LLMs into your workflow. It’s a complex topic with a lot of nuance, like all engineering, but I would be happy to share some details.
Critical review is the key sticking point. Junior developers also write crappy code that requires intense scrutiny. It’s not impossible (or irresponsible) to use code written by a junior in production, for the same reason. For a “good developer,” many of the quality problems are mitigated by putting roadblocks in place to…
- force close attention to edits as they are being written,
- facilitate handholding and constant instruction while the model is making decisions, and
- ensure thorough review at the time of design/writing/conclusion of the change.
When it comes to making safe and correct changes via LLM, specifically, I have seen plenty of “good developers” in real life, now, who have engineered their workflows to use AI cautiously like this.
Again, though, I share many of your concerns. I just think there’s nuance here and it’s not black and white/all or nothing.
While I appreciate your differentiated opinion, I strongly disagree. As long as there is no actual AI involved (and considering that humanity is dumb enough to throw hundreds of billions at a gigantic parrot, I doubt we would stand a chance to develop true AI, even if it was possible to create), the output has no reasoning behind it.
- it violates licenses and denies authorship and - if everyone was indeed equal before the law, this alone would disqualify the code output from such a model because it’s simply illegal to use code in violation of license restrictions & stripped of licensing / authorship information
- there is no point. Developing code is 95-99% solving the problem in your mind, and 1-5% actual code writing. You can’t have an algorithm do the writing for you and then skip on the thinking part. And if you do the thinking part anyways, you have gained nothing.
A good developer has zero need for non-deterministic tools.
As for potential use in brainstorming ideas / looking at potential solutions: that’s what the usenet was good for, before those very corporations fucked it up for everyone, who are now force-feeding everyone the snake oil that they pretend to have any semblance of intelligence.
Maybe they’ll listen to one of their own?
The kind of useful article I would expect then is one exlaining why word prediction != AI
Don’t worry. The people on LinkedIn and tech executives tell us it will transform everything soon!
I really have not found AI to be useless for coding. I have found it extremely useful and it has saved me hundreds of hours. It is not without its faults or frustrations, but the it really is a tool I would not want to be without.
That’s because you are not a proper developer, as proven by your comment. And you create tech legacy that will have a net cost in terms of maintenance or downtime.
I am for sure not a coder as it has never been my strong suite, but I am without a doubt an awesome developer or I would not have a top rated multiplayer VR app that is pushing the boundaries of what mobile VR can do.
The only person who will have to look at my code is me so any and all issues be it my code or AI code will be my burden and AI has really made that burden much less. In fact, I recently installed Coplay in my Unity Engine Editor and OMG it is amazing at assisting not just with code, but even finding little issues with scene setup, shaders, animations and more. I am really blown away with it. It has allowed me to spend even less time on the code and more time imagineering amazing experiences which is what fans of the app care about the most. They couldn’t care less if I wrote the code or AI did as long as it works and does not break immersion. Is that not what it is all about at the end of the day?
As long as AI helps you achieve your goals and your goals are grounded, including maintainability, I see no issues. Yeah, misdirected use of AI can lead to hard to maintain code down the line, but that is why you need a human developer in the loop to ensure the overall architecture and design make sense. Any code base can become hard to maintain if not thought through be is human or AI written.
Look, bless your heart if you have a successful app, but success / sales is not exclusive to products of quality. Just look around at all the slop that people buy nowadays.
As long as AI helps you achieve your goals and your goals are grounded, including maintainability, I see no issues.
Two issues with that
- what you are using has nothing whatsoever to do with AI, it’s a glorified pattern repeater - an actual parrot has more intelligence
- if the destruction of entire ecosystems for slop is not an issue that you see, you should not be allowed anywhere near technology (as by now probably billions of people)
I do not understand your point you are making about my particular situation as I am not making slop. Plus one persons slop is another’s treasure. What exactly are you suggesting as the 2 issues you outlined see like they are being directed to someone else perhaps?
- I am calling it AI as that is what it is called, but you are correct, it is a pattern predictor
- I am not creating slop but something deeply immersive and enjoyed by people. In terms of the energy used, I am on solar and run local LLMs.
I didn’t say your particular application that I know nothing about is slop, I said success does not mean quality. And if you use statistical pattern generation to save time, chances are high that your software is not of good quality.
Even solar energy is not harvested waste-free (chemical energy and production of cells). Nevertheless, even if it were, you are still contributing to the spread of slop and harming other people. Both through spreading acceptance of a technology used to harm billions of people for the benefit of a few, and through energy and resource waste.
I am sure my code could be better. I am also sure the SDKs I use could be better and the gam engine could’ve better. For what I need, they all work good enough to get the job done. I am sure issues will come up as a result as it has many times in the past already, even before LLMs helped, but that is par for the course for a developer to tackle.
We’re about to face a crisis nobody’s talking about. In 10 years, who’s going to mentor the next generation? The developers who’ve been using AI since day one won’t have the architectural understanding to teach. The product managers who’ve always relied on AI for decisions won’t have the judgment to pass on. The leaders who’ve abdicated to algorithms won’t have the wisdom to share.
Except we are talking about that, and the tech bro response is “in 10 years we’ll have AGI and it will do all these things all the time permanently.” In their roadmap, there won’t be a next generation of software developers, product managers, or mid-level leaders, because AGI will do all those things faster and better than humans. There will just be CEOs, the capital they control, and AI.
What’s most absurd is that, if that were all true, that would lead to a crisis much larger than just a generational knowledge problem in a specific industry. It would cut regular workers entirely out of the economy, and regular workers form the foundation of the economy, so the entire economy would collapse.
“Yes, the planet got destroyed. But for a beautiful moment in time we created a lot of value for shareholders.”
That’s why they’re all-in on authoritarianism.
Yep, and now you know why all the tech companies suddenly became VERY politically active. This future isn’t compatible with democracy. Once these companies no longer provide employment their benefit to society becomes a big fat question mark.
According to a study, the
lowertop 10% accounts for something like 68% of cash flow in the economy. Us plebs are being cut out all together.That being said, I think if people can’t afford to eat, things might bet bad. We will probably end up a kept population in these ghouls fever dreams.
Edit: I’m an idiot.
Once Boston Dynamic style dogs and Androids can operate over a number of days independently, I’d say all bets are off that we would be kept around as pets.
I’m fairly certain your Musks and Altmans would be content with a much smaller human population existing to only maintain their little bubble and damn everything else.
Edit: I’m an idiot.
Same here. Nobody knows what the eff they are doing. Especially the people in charge. Much of life is us believing confident people who talk a good game but dont know wtf they are doing and really shouldnt be allowed to make even basic decisions outside a very narrow range of competence.
We have an illusion of broad meritocracy and accountability in life but its mostly just not there.
What does lower top 10% mean?
Also, even if we make it through a wave of bullshit and all these companies fail in 10 years, the next wave will be ready and waiting, spouting the same crap - until it’s actually true (or close enough to be bearable financially). We can’t wait any longer to get this shit under control.
