The way AI is being used feels like it is proving that, in many orgs, what has always mattered has been the appearance of work, not results of work. Will we wake up in a few years and find out we’ve fired all the doers and are now overloaded with the fakers?
I find that to be a very defeatist take. It always mattered how much value you provide to the business. Writing pretty code or arguing about some implementation detail never really mattered. If you are good at coming up with solutions to problems AI is just one additional tool in your toolbox and personally it allows me to do much more than before.
There were fakers before, and there will be fakers after.
> Writing pretty code or arguing about some implementation detail never really mattered.
True, in the same sense that sharpening your tools if you're a trader doesn't matter to your customers: what matters is that the job you deliver is good.
Making sure you put all electrical wiring in conduits rather than buried in plaster is not what most customers care about, but it will mean easier repairs and quicker improvements in the future.
Writing good (not necessarily "pretty") code and arguing about implementation details means you will have an easier time delivering your work, both now and in the future. You have a better chance of delivering code that can be maintained and understood by yourself and others, including the people who come after you.
Furthermore, when done right, these discussions keep a trace for understanding bugs and for code archeology when in the future you're trying to understand how decisions were made and the tradeoffs considered, which could massively help refactors, rewrites and decisions to drop certain parts of the code base.
Of course, you can sharpen a tool too much or at the wrong angle, or you can make a mistake and fill up your conduits with plaster, but you stand a much better chance of ending with a better, cleaner, more maintainable and understandable product if you do practice those steps than if you skip them altogether.
Are you willing to wake up at 3 AM when that "valuable" AI-written code pages on-call?
I agree there is some value in AI tools, but implementation details do matter. People shouldn't be pushing unread code to prod. That's how you end up with security holes and other bugs. That's how you end up dropping millions of orders on Amazon.com.
I think the last ten+ years has taught us that massive security breaches are more of an insurance claim problem and some $4/mo credit monitoring payouts.
And major corporations certainly don’t seem to care that much about leaving massive amounts of money on the table from jr level tech issues. I see it all the time. I mentioned a few from Walmart, Meta, and Amazon recently.
Everyone talks like these things matter, but the results say everyone is just playing pretend.
Excuse me? Amazon lost more money in one day than most companies have in revenue, from dropped orders. I would say that matters. Believe it or not, the systems we work on do things that matter in the real world.
Seems to be an instance of the prevention paradox: Security (in general) is taken seriously enough that major incidences are low enough that people think that security does not matter that much.
There is a shift to software mass production over the last decade(s). AI is now speeding up this process extremely. There will be most software produced with AI and "cog coders", similar to a production line in manufacturing.
Some few (good ones) will find niches and "hand craft" software, similar to today when you still can buy hand forged axes etc. Obviously the market for these products will be much smaller but it will exist.
I you love programming you should try to get into the second category. Be a master craftsman.
Actually i think we will see a faker take over and then a doer conquest. All those going now take the recipe with them and are capable of cooking it elsewhere. Elsewhere being a place without ai management.
Imagine that you're given a business problem to solve. You represent the process of writing the code with a graph - each vertex is a git commit. We consider the space of all possible git commits, so the graph is infinite. All vertices are connected with directional edges, and each edge has a value "cost". If you are in commit A and you want to go to commit B, you have to pay the cost from A to B. Your goal is to find a relatively short path from empty git commit to any vertex which contains code that has some specific observable business properties.
You might notice that not everyone is equally smart, so when giving this task to real people, we'll associate "speed" with each person. The higher the speed, the lower the paid costs when traversing the graph. I'll leave the specifics vaguely undefined.
Since a part of the task is to discover information about the graph, we also need to specify that every person has some kind of heuristic function that evaluates how likely given node is to get you closer towards some vertex that can be considered a goal. Obviously, smarter people have heuristic functions that are more closer to ground truth, while stupid people are more biased towards random noise. This also models the fact that it takes knowledge to recognize what a correct solution is.
This model predicts what we intuitively think - smart specialists will quickly discover connections that take them towards the goal and pay low costs associated with them, while idiots will take the scenic route, but by and large will also eventually get to some vertex that satisfies the business requirements, even if it's a vertex that contains mostly low-quality code, because for idiots the cheap edges that seem good at first glance are the only edges they can realistically traverse.
Obviously, if you have a group of people working on the same task, you'll reach the business goal faster. Therefore, a group of people is equivalent to one person with higher speed, and some better heuristic.
This conclusion suddenly creates a well-known, but interesting situation - each smart specialist can be replaced by a group of idiots. Or, the way I heard it, "the theorem of interns - every senior can be replaced by a finite number of interns".
What AI does is it increases people's speed. Not the heuristic function, but the speed. Importantly, the better the heuristic function, the smaller the speed gains. Makes sense - an idiot who doesn't know shit and copy-pastes things from ChatGPT will have massive speed gains, while a specialist will only modestly benefit from AI.
From business perspective though, by having more idiots write more slop with more AI we traverse the graph significantly faster. Sure, we still take the scenic route, and maybe even with AI we take the really fucking long scenic route, but because the speed is so high, it doesn't matter.
And because AI supercharges idiots more than smart specialists, we have a situation where the skill of working with idiots is more valuable on the job market than the skill of doing your job right. Your goal isn't to find the shortest path, or the prettiest code, your goal is to prompt AI as quickly as possible to get you to any vertex that satisfies the business requirements.
Your graph model lack the aspect of increasing complexity. As you traverse the graph every available node gets increasingly more distant. In some areas of the graph less so than others, a good heuristic function not only identifies a single shortest path, but also dense areas of possible value in the graph.
The question is if blind speed scales quicker then distances grow.
That's true, and I guess the reason why we're building so many datacenters is to answer the question how far exactly will blind speed take us, assuming that we fail to make substantial improvements to AI architecture.
And that's what makes it actionable defamation. If your doctor signs off on an AI summary that accuses you of being an drug dependant sex worker, that's serious malpractice.
I rely on Medicare as a disabled person. I love it. The reduction in stress I experienced when I got to transition from my former employer plan to Medicare is pretty indescribable. I want every American to have at least this as a baseline.
Most of the complaints around Medicare come from those who get sold (conned) on takin Medicare “Advantage”, which is a privatized option for Medicare that denies a lot of coverage.
IIUC, the difference (for USG) of Medicare vs Medicare Advantage is that Medicare subsidizes the cost of a procedure done by a provider while Medicare Advantage (MA) pays a fixed rate per treatment to an insurer.
So if the MA rate is less than the provider changes then the insurer is highly incentivized to deny you coverage. While for Medicare you'd have a higher co-pay.
This also leads to scenarios where MA insurers upcode patients so that the treatment is at a higher rate [1]. (ex. Marking patients as recovering drug addicts when prescribing opioids to get both money from both counseling and the opioid treatment).
If that were true why is everyone so irritated by this? Just ignore it in that case. But for those people that may want to become subject to British jurisdiction in future or do other business there in future, they will take requests from Ofcom seriously.
When DoorDash or whatever courier comes to a restaurant, they pick up “order number”. That order number is in essence just private IP. Courier translates it to address=public ip.
It follows that the restaurant writes the address on every delivery. Do they ID each recipient?
In the original example the Parisian bars sells and sends the alcohol.
You’ve modified that to introduce a proxy, DoorDash, that now sells and sends the alcohol. If DoorDash sells it they’re the ones in trouble in your example.
If a country has media or broadcast standards laws, and you distribute or broadcast content in that country that violates those laws, that’s on you. The country can just fine you if you chose not to comply. Just the same as they would if you were doing it while living in that country. You’re not obliged to care about the fine if you don’t live there and never intend to travel there. But if you do then you’re going to be subject to their laws at that point, for violating those laws when you distributed that content in that country.
It should be done that way because nominally the law is supposed to address a serious problem (supposedly protecting kids) as they justify that as the reason for an invasion of privacy and additional business regulations. Ignoring the reality of what the internet is and passing a law that clearly won't achieve it's stated goals but has serious drawbacks that will be enacted is not good governance, at best it's showboating at worst it's a deliberate step towards an Orwellian panopticon.
The hardware that propagates the data transmission is owned partly by the UK and partly by Canada. The Canadian website operator has turned off the transmission to the UK on their side and has fulfilled their obligations. The UK is complaining that they didn't turn off transmission on their side.
What you're saying is that the website operator should travel to the UK to enforce UK law from Canada. It's nonsensical.
Edit: If this wasn't clear enough here is a cartoonish version:
Ofcom: Your site violates UK law. By allowing UK citizens access, you must abide by UK law.
Website operator: I do not care about serving UK citizens and am now blocking UK IP addresses. Thank you for notifying us.
Ofcom: We have decided that we will not block access to your website from the UK. Therefore it is theoretically possible to access your website anyway, which is a violation of UK law. No matter how much effort you spend on ensuring that UK citizens do not gain access to your website, we will make sure that there will always be a non zero possibility of violating UK law. Since we are not blocking anything, the blame cannot lie in UK users circumventing a UK side block, which would force us to prosecute UK citizens rather than you as the website operator.
Please shut your website down to ensure compliance.
Website Operator: Okay so you're telling me I have to build the great firewall in the UK, make all ISPs adopt it and lobby a change in UK law to make the firewall mandatory, just so I can host my website?
> Website operator: I do not care about serving UK citizens and am now blocking UK IP addresses. Thank you for notifying us.
Wait did 4chan actually block UK addresses? My understanding was it hadn’t which makes your story fall apart.
The idea that a router is responsible for the packets it forwards rather than the person that made the content and put that content in those packets is getting silly.
I don’t think the founders made a mistake. They understood the weaknesses in their system and were very open about the fact that it wouldn’t always be smooth sailing. Thomas Jefferson famously said: “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants”.
Liberty isn’t a constant state, but a dynamic cycle. Even 250 years ago, they knew that a guy like Donald Trump would come along.
At this stage tech companies should be pushing for very strong legislation that makes the US a bastion of data privacy to restore trust. But they are still pushing in the other direction.
No amount of legislation can stop subpoenas, wiretapping and other extrajudicial means the US has used for data surveillance since the inception of the Patriot Act. With data privacy increasingly becoming a critical matter of national security, strengthening data sovereignty laws and holding corporations accountable was always the way forward.
This is untrue. Subpoenas, wiretapping, and other extrajudicial means can be stopped by legislation that bans them. You can't say in one breath that legislation that enables it (Patriot Act) cannot be undone by more legislation. There are many hurdles required to produce the required legislation, which may not even be broadly supported by the public, but it isn't correct to say "no amount of legislation can stop existing legislation".
If they could be stopped by legislation that bans them, they would have been stopped by the legislation that banned them prior to the legislation that authorised them, but we know this is not the case. They were being done on a wide scale long before they were legal.
That would require to repeal the FISA and the Patriot acts. That won't happen.
More fundamentally, however, the US constitution only protects Americans and American companies. Europeans would be foolish to trust the US with their data given this lack of basic protection and oversight.
Extrajudicial means something not legally authorized. The surveillance apparatus in the US for decades has operated outside the confines of legality. By definition, they cannot be stopped by legislation that bans them.
None of them want that. Meta actively hates you. Google doesn’t want data privacy. Neither does Apple, even if they aren’t overtly abusing it for advertising. Why would any of them push for more privacy? Their users largely don’t care (or they wouldn’t use those services in the first place).
reply