advael

Why? I'd join more book clubs if I didn't have to spend so much time working or looking for work. And I'm luckier than most in that I somewhat got to pursue a career of my choice. I think the vast overwhelming majority of people don't get much fulfillment from their vocation at all, and given a basic income, would spend their time and energy on "economically useless" endeavors that aren't just wireheading. In fact, I think the degree to which people do that now has mostly to do with feeling trapped and isolated by economic conditions that are a political choice already, let alone in a supposedly post-scarcity world

The article does a great job of identifying the locus of the problem: Windows, which has always been an exemplar of bad software, both in the sense of quality and the sense of ethics, and is produced by a company that explores new frontiers in making software bad in both senses every year, a tradition dating to its very founding

I will note that like any large enough company, it also employs a lot of cool people doing great work, and don't see this as a contradiction in any way

So your view is that there's no way to recover, and there's no viable alternative. In other words, that "the rot" has consumed the body politic and there's nothing to be done about it. To me this seems like a rationalization of apathy and inaction, but if it's the conclusion you've really come to, I encourage you to disengage from the political process as would seem to be the logical course of action implied by the claim, though this is partially because frankly the involvement of people with such beliefs in said process likely can only run counter to my interests

I tend to agree with the idea that one shouldn't define oneself by a job, especially since one's career is generally dependent on some combination of market forces, institutional gatekeepers, and other factors that are beyond one's control to varying degrees. However, people do tend to put that kind of personal investment into things they spend most of their time on, and especially things they had to spend a long time training for. In order to realize a world where people aren't defined by their career, we would need to first realize a world in which people weren't equal parts encouraged and forced to put most of their time and effort into one, which would require somewhat different economic arrangements than presently exist

If the predictions of the death of software engineering come to fruition, the only acceptable result of that is a world where "software" is a detail about how computers do things that some people can investigate for the sake of their curiosity, or because they are particularly meticulous about some detail. A world in which any software can be created by prompting eventually converges into a world where people solve their own problems with software, without thinking about the act of creating software. The idea of selling software in that world becomes ridiculous, and computers reach their potential as a tool normal people and businesses alike can use to solve problems.

To be clear, as someone who currently makes a living on making software, this is a major upheaval and sucks for me at least in the short term, because of the economic realities of the society in which we live. However, there are only two classes of alternatives. One is that the "AI can make all software" world fails to materialize. We're certainly not guaranteed this outcome, LLMs still generate sprawling and buggy code and we are in an era of unprecedented levels of tech rot. It's possible this is an unsolvable problem, and engineering, while probably assisted by LLMs, still requires people do a lot of manual work, or at least steering and guiding. The idea that we can already get reliable software out of claude go brr is uh... pretty misguided and silly, and at best the people who push that idea are, shall we say, optimistic. I think software engineering for a company continues to suck in this world, and I hope there's the opportunity for more people to go around being computer-touchers for non-computer-people in a more integrated context, rather than some massive "tech industry" increasingly insulating itself from society at large and building shit to try to ensnare and enthrall people, as it has been for the last few decades.

But I do think it's pretty plausible we get there, get to the computer that you just interact with by asking it for things - which it builds as software on the backend because software is a way more reliable and cheap way to repeatedly do the same task than throwing an LLM at the problem fresh each time you need something - but mostly people don't worry about that part. In that world, we either get to own computers or we don't, and if we don't, we are in an authoritarian dystopia the likes of which the world has never seen and may never escape. That's the second alternative. Governments outlaw computers or companies make it impossible for consumers to get their hands on them or some combination of these. This is the world that most large tech firms clearly want, and even as they praise open source software and rely on it as the backbone of most things they do, they seek to enclose the commons and use it as a means of societal control and get fat off of rent-seeking. A world in which the awesome power of the general purpose computer is a tool of control by an elite aristocracy is a world of either extermination or oppression of an unprecedented number of people, both in sheer numbers and percentage of the population. I think it behooves almost everyone to fight against this class of outcome tooth and nail, no matter what promises the present crop of aristocrats tries to entice you with

Personally I want the world where a computer is just a tool most people have, that does computation things a person or organization wants, and asking in a way that gets them what they want is a pretty normal skill to have. Star Trek really feels prescient as I watch "non-technical" people start to engage with solving their own problems with computers more. It feels very plausible that people find themselves asking for things we currently have to write programs for in plain natural language. I think we could get there on our current trajectory. But we could also get a world where governments and corporations conspire to hoard computation and lock the general public out of it.

I don't think "software factories" are useless in this moment any more than I think writing programming languages was useless ten years ago. I do agree that there's an infinitesimal likelihood of this making you money in the short term, though. You likely won't be able to sell them, make a business out of them competing with the big guys, or maybe even leverage them at your corporate job. For your own purposes, though? Why not? Not everyone cares about setting the terms by which we build things with computers, but some do, and more power to them. Letting this be monopolized is a part of how we get the bad outcomes. If operating systems had fully become a monopoly, we'd already be much further into the bad outcomes than we are

While the phrasing I used derived from a well-known image in modern culture, good enough fundamental literacy skills could likely help you deduce the intent of my reply

Often, there are many solutions to a problem, with different externalities and implementation requirements. Speed limit enforcement for sure has some benefits, but also some downsides. Any absolute has edge cases that don't work, but I don't in fact think creating the large networks of people empowered to surveil citizens to enforce speed limits is the only viable means of reducing traffic deaths, a goal which is often better served by creating more viable transportation alternatives to cars. I don't think carceral approaches to problems are always wrong, but they are often an attempt to individuate a problem that's better addressed on the level of infrastructure

My brother in china once told me "In china, every company of a certain size has board seats filled by a representative of the party, to make sure corporate and government priorities align. In america, every company of a certain size sends lobbyists and sometimes runs candidates directly, to make sure corporate and government priorities align"

Concentration of power has many instances of convergent evolution, but societies trending dystopian is heavily correlated with concentration of power regardless of the shape it takes

Yet you also participate in society, curious

There is no form of surveillance that does more good than harm in the long run. The endless debates about the value of "catching bad guys" or "keeping people on their best behavior" should be rightly seen as opposed to the fundamental notion that human beings are capable of cooperation and altruism at scale. No amount of mass surveillance is justifiable, and there is no version of the future in which we allow it but do not create dystopia

Ah yes, the ol' "the unwashed masses are too dumb to know what's good for them"

I can't imagine you're big on democracy per se either, huh

It's sad to me that the entire canon of "brilliant moves" available to business people are essentially strategies for designing dystopian outcomes at a massive scale. This is probably not fully the case, but disproportionately this seems to be what is called "brilliant" in that field

I think "relative to other countries" it has fallen out of favor quite a lot. That's the story the data tell, unambiguously. What it didn't do is fall behind other countries in absolute terms, but in relative terms it did

IDK do we still consider china - a country that currently has a fairly enormous middle class - to be communist? For that matter, do we view the current american economy to be a free market? (It's certainly "capitalist" in the strict academic sense of the word, wherein capital invested is the means by which ownership is ascertained, but that's generally not what people mean colloquially, so I find that using that term mostly bogs people down in semantics)

Furthermore, why do you believe that the only possible outcome of class solidarity is violent revolution? Why do you believe that any revolution would inevitably settle on, presumably, a specifically soviet model of government and economic policy? I find that most american adults, even ones who otherwise seem intelligent, seem to have this picture of economic and power relations that just kind of sounds like a half-remembered bad cartoon of a cold war that ended before I was born.

From both experience and the continued state of the incentives that lead to the behavior, it seems unreasonable to trust any company at their word about such things