Snoozle

it's not engaging or bouncing. it's simply responding as likely as it can to what would go after your sentences.

Enlighten me then as to the secret meaning behind the words used to communicate in the language we call English. Saying that AI is really transforming the company is fine. Saying that 20% of staff need to be laid off is fine. Those are understood terms. How do they relate? There's no explanation. Did cost need to be reduced? Did those people no longer add value? Was there certain projects that weren't profitable? Nothing is explained because meaning is avoided.

The sentence is not confusing, the sentence doesn't mean anything. There's nothing confusing about it, but there's no information either. "We're making great strides in AI" and "We need to cut 20% of people" are simply two statements without any connection aside from the fact that they are next to each other in the sentence.

"We are our own most demanding customer. Cloudflare’s usage of AI has increased by more than 600% in the last three months alone. Employees across the company from engineering to HR to finance to marketing run thousands of AI agent sessions each day to get their work done. That means we have to be intentional in how we architect our company for the agentic AI era in order to supercharge the value we deliver to our customers and to honor our mission to help build a better Internet for everyone, everywhere." As an English enthusiast, I'm getting very frustrated at how the language is consistently abused in executive communications to write words without saying anything.

The implication that is NOT said is that suddenly 20% of people were sitting around without any work to do because AI was making everyone so efficient and productive. This does not, however, seem to be the reality, based on conversations within the company. It appears we have yet another case of economic downturn disguised as increasing velocity.

"We are our own most demanding customer. Cloudflare’s usage of AI has increased by more than 600% in the last three months alone. Employees across the company from engineering to HR to finance to marketing run thousands of AI agent sessions each day to get their work done. That means we have to be intentional in how we architect our company for the agentic AI era in order to supercharge the value we deliver to our customers and to honor our mission to help build a better Internet for everyone, everywhere."

As an English enthusiast, I'm getting very frustrated at how the language is consistently abused in executive communications to write words without saying anything.

The implication that is NOT said is that suddenly 20% of people were sitting around without any work to do because AI was making everyone so efficient and productive. This does not, however, seem to be the reality, based on conversations within the company. It appears we have yet another case of economic downturn disguised as increasing velocity.

I meant rather the market for human writing will vanish when 80% or more of the population views LLM text as good communication.

Why does this entire article read like chatgpt? Kind of ironic considering the content.

Big llm smells: 'Not "AI helps you autocomplete a function." Not "AI explains a stack trace." I mean the full-on narrative:'

'Sure, it's a weird language. It looks archaic. Sometimes it's hostile. Sometimes it's beautiful.

But still—if you know what you're doing—you can sit down with a keyboard and turn words into:

a product a workflow an automated business process a system that makes money while you sleep a tool that saves a team thousands of hours That's real power. It's leverage.'

'Not because we're lazy. Not because we're gatekeeping. Because building real systems is hard, and the number of people who can reliably do it is limited.'

Sometimes I think we get too caught up on what chatgpt will do to the economy, software, and businesses, and forget the most insidious aspect of this type of technology - we will no longer know how to write and all human text communication will confirm to a specific pattern.

Are you really winning when your win is being anxious and working all the time?

Nobody was suggesting solutions, but in regards to GLP-1 agonists as solving the 'problem' perfectly, no, it's just solving the symptoms. The problem is scientific advancement creating hyper palatable food and drink with no nutritional value and low satiety, combined with the food drive increases that comes with eating and drinking that food, combined with the removal of general fitness and mobility as a core requirement to being able to receive food and drink. I'm not saying there's a way to put back in the box but let's not kid ourselves that these drugs are a perfect solution either.

I suppose theoretically, as wealth grows, the competition for labor to create that wealth will elevate those at the bottom.

I'm no big lover of short form video content, but Cal Newport comes across as a bit obtuse in this article. Why is he surprised about these videos being used for consumptive purposes? I find the short, attention grabbing videos ala reels, tiktok, shorts, or vine not much different than modern tv. Have you tried watching TV from your peripheral vision? It's nothing but rapid, jarring cuts and bursts of color.

A few weeks ago, I read a 1300 page fantasy book. A few weeks before that, I read a 400 page nonfiction book on a subject I'm interested in. I've also read philosophy, wrote in a journal, watched tv shows and movies, browsed TikTok for hours, and took many walks around the park. I really can't say I find any of these experiences any more meaningful than the others. Anti-consumptive behavior has its place when a life is out of balance, but we're all going to die, so does it really matter in the end?

From reading about this and Ozempic it appears the main functionality is reducing appetite / blood sugar spikes which results in weight loss. I am curious for those who are using it who have traditionally had a relatively poor diet (refined carbs, sugars, etc), has it changed what foods are desirable or does it simply reduce the amount eaten? In addition, when using these products and switching to a healthy diet such as high protein, which already typically affects satiety, does it cause the inability to eat an adequate amount of calories to function properly?

I don't have any discussion on the LLM factor of this conversation, but I'll weigh in on cover letters. As a hiring manager running a fully remote team with medium-low on the pay scale, I can tell you that any open position I post is inundated with 700+ resumes. This is after initial HR filtering. There is no way realistically for me to review all of these resumes, and cover letters I will just completely ignore. I basically draw arbitrary lines in the sand to reduce resume count below 100 (college degree, no unemployment gaps, at least 2 years exp at each job), and even then it feels like throwing darts to pick a reasonable amount of candidates to interview (10-15). And don't even get me started on the candidates that don't actually have any of the experience that is on their resume, or that are googling every question I ask, or are showing up on camera in sweat pants and a tank top.

I dread interviewing and will almost always just ask my network or coworkers for referrals because posting positions online seems such a terrible way to source candidates these days.

I feel like I watch both threads casually every first of the month, and nothing felt weird or different about this one to me. I haven't ever kept track of total posts, more of the ratio between who wants to be hired posts vs who's hiring posts. Is it possible that a majority of posts aren't made on the day of the post?

One big difference between life in 1719 and today is the pervasive feeling that humanity is somehow bad or immoral and that the sustainability of the lives that we live are precarious. The combination of the internet, advances in science and our understanding of the world, the complete inundation of all media with news, and the fact that bad news is easier to engage with, has created this curtain of gloom across the educated spheres of the human race.

I personally believe this phenomenon is the cause of a great many of the current problems we have today. Excessive greed and hoarding is a fear response. Rabid political polarization either to try to fix the problems we face or ignore them and protect our mental health. There is a large shortage of faith in the future, and there's a lot of realization that technological advancements of the past have created some of the overwhelming problems we face today.

Distraction and nostalgia are the best selling items in the modern world. Depression and suicide are the highest they've ever been. The social fabric is unwinding, and communities are dying, and an article like this comes along that makes me wonder just how it would feel to struggle and strive in a world in which the future had so much potential.

Who knows though? Maybe this feeling is something that was pervasive in these times.