> Instead of selling products based on helpful features and letting users decide, executives often deploy scare tactics that essentially warn people they will become obsolete if they don't get on the AI bandwagon. For instance, Julia Liuson, another executive at Microsoft, which owns GitHub, recently warned employees that "using AI is no longer optional."
So many clowns. It's like everyone's reading from the same script/playbook. Nothing says "this tool is useful" quite like forcing people to use it.
> It's like everyone's reading from the same script/playbook.
I'd assume that many CEO are driven by the same urge to please the board. And depending on your board, there might be people on it who spend many hours per week on LinkedIn, and see all the success stories around AI, maybe experienced something first hand.
Good news: It's, from my estimate, only a phase. Like when blockchain hit, and everyone wanted to be involved. This time - and that worries me - the ressources involved are more expensive, though. There might be a stronger incentive for people to "get their money back". I haven't thought about the implications yet.
People say this a lot, please the board. But why would so many boards be hype-driven and CEO's be rational? It might just as well be the C-suite themselves who are the source of it.
It's not like blockchain. Blockchain legitimately made things slower and less useful for dubious benefits.
AI is more like the early web. There is definite value that people can see, but no one really knows how to monetize beyond the incredibly obvious 'sell people access to it', so everyone is throwing spaghetti at the wall waiting for it to stick. When someone gets it to stick, there will be a giant amount of money coming at them, but until then there will be a ton of people with sauce all over their faces looking like idiots.
People are biased to using tools they are familiar with. The idea that if a tool was useful people would use it simply false. In order to avoid being disrupted, extra effort needs to be made to get people to learn new tools.
A few people will use said new tool. If they start writing software that is sustainably better for half the cost, eventually others will take notice. Early adopter sort of thing. Switching takes energy, yes, so many will be resistant. But when you find yourself the last person doing things the old way and it's taking more time and effort... It might be time to spend the effort and get with the times.
Not necessarily saying this AI is worth switching to yet. It could fizzle out, we'll see. But I'm saying if it's truly worth it's salt, it'll take off because it's good, rather than die despite being good.
Things that this aren't true for are things that are only marginally better. if A is 5% better but B is 95% more popular.. A might yet die because it's not worth switching to. AI is claiming a lot more than 5% gains though
From the CEO's article referenced in that post [1]:
> the rise of AI in software development signals the need for computer science education to be reinvented as well.
> Teaching in a way that evaluates rote syntax or memorization of APIs is becoming obsolete
He thinks computer science is about memorizing syntax and APIs. No wonder he's telling developers to embrace AI or quit their careers if he believes the entire field is that shallow. Not the best person to take advice from.
It's also hilarious how he downplays fundamental flaws of LLMs as something AI zealots, the truly smart people, can overcome by producing so much AI slop that they turn from skeptics into ...drumroll... AI strategists. lol
> Instead of selling products based on helpful features and letting users decide, executives often deploy scare tactics that essentially warn people they will become obsolete if they don't get on the AI bandwagon. For instance, Julia Liuson, another executive at Microsoft, which owns GitHub, recently warned employees that "using AI is no longer optional."
So many clowns. It's like everyone's reading from the same script/playbook. Nothing says "this tool is useful" quite like forcing people to use it.
It definitely feels like the imbecility of the corporate class has reached new levels.
AI is not for developers only!
1 reply →
> It's like everyone's reading from the same script/playbook.
I'd assume that many CEO are driven by the same urge to please the board. And depending on your board, there might be people on it who spend many hours per week on LinkedIn, and see all the success stories around AI, maybe experienced something first hand.
Good news: It's, from my estimate, only a phase. Like when blockchain hit, and everyone wanted to be involved. This time - and that worries me - the ressources involved are more expensive, though. There might be a stronger incentive for people to "get their money back". I haven't thought about the implications yet.
People say this a lot, please the board. But why would so many boards be hype-driven and CEO's be rational? It might just as well be the C-suite themselves who are the source of it.
1 reply →
It's not like blockchain. Blockchain legitimately made things slower and less useful for dubious benefits.
AI is more like the early web. There is definite value that people can see, but no one really knows how to monetize beyond the incredibly obvious 'sell people access to it', so everyone is throwing spaghetti at the wall waiting for it to stick. When someone gets it to stick, there will be a giant amount of money coming at them, but until then there will be a ton of people with sauce all over their faces looking like idiots.
6 replies →
People are biased to using tools they are familiar with. The idea that if a tool was useful people would use it simply false. In order to avoid being disrupted, extra effort needs to be made to get people to learn new tools.
A few people will use said new tool. If they start writing software that is sustainably better for half the cost, eventually others will take notice. Early adopter sort of thing. Switching takes energy, yes, so many will be resistant. But when you find yourself the last person doing things the old way and it's taking more time and effort... It might be time to spend the effort and get with the times.
Not necessarily saying this AI is worth switching to yet. It could fizzle out, we'll see. But I'm saying if it's truly worth it's salt, it'll take off because it's good, rather than die despite being good.
Things that this aren't true for are things that are only marginally better. if A is 5% better but B is 95% more popular.. A might yet die because it's not worth switching to. AI is claiming a lot more than 5% gains though
You're presupposing utility.
From the CEO's article referenced in that post [1]:
> the rise of AI in software development signals the need for computer science education to be reinvented as well.
> Teaching in a way that evaluates rote syntax or memorization of APIs is becoming obsolete
He thinks computer science is about memorizing syntax and APIs. No wonder he's telling developers to embrace AI or quit their careers if he believes the entire field is that shallow. Not the best person to take advice from.
It's also hilarious how he downplays fundamental flaws of LLMs as something AI zealots, the truly smart people, can overcome by producing so much AI slop that they turn from skeptics into ...drumroll... AI strategists. lol
[1]: https://ashtom.github.io/developers-reinvented
Reminder that Github _still_ does not support IPv6: https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/10539
I contacted GitHub support about this and they assured me they understand it's a priority and are working on it. Three years ago.
Surely their LLM can work this out
cheaper than layoffs.
[flagged]
Devs leaving can often be a stability boost :)
But if that's what they want, they may be driving out the exact wrong subset of their devs.
Right up until it isn't.