paolop

Thanks for reading, vaidhy! Not sure those assumptions are in there to be honest. The chart is simply to compare replacing "devs" with "devs + AI" to obtain the same output vs. keeping the same number of devs and increase the overall output. We can debate the multiplier, but it's math that with the same multiplier, more devs will produce more output, all things being equal.

If what you are saying it's true, i.e. AI is borderline useless, it should not be used as a reason to justify layoffs, right?

Finally, I was lucky enough to get a lot of my work prioritized - that paragraph was just trying to be the usual funny interaction between PMs and devs. I guess it didn't work. The main point remains - products today are not that polished or complete, so clearly some code is not being written or fixed.

Are companies using AI just to justify trimming the fat after years of overhiring and allowing Hooli-style jobs for people like Big Head? Otherwise, I feel like I’m missing something—why lay off developers now, just as AI is finally making them more productive, with so much software still needing to be maintained, improved, and rebuilt?

I've been using it for a bit now and very happy with it. The stale-persistent-volume-claim detection has been almost a 100% hit in my case; it's a real game-changer for cleaning up disk space.

Kubernetes clutter can quickly become a headache, and having a tool like this to identify and remove unused resources has made my workflow so much smoother.

Possible, but if someone needs it and it works well, why not?

Who are the 10x AI PM out there? Do you know any?

I've found Andrej's talk the best out there to explain LLMs in the simplest possible way. He has a unique way of making complex ideas simple. This transcription-like blog is for those who prefer reading to watching.

Agreed - and ultimately, you start removing the need to have a git app and git knowledge to pull and compile... it's not just 5 minutes, but you open up the market to way more people. Now, ideally it should just be as installing an app, but it's a good step in that direction.

Totally agreed it's not yet ideal - absolutely. But I feel we are expanding the pie of users with this step, which is just an intermediate step. Do you want to work on that packaging ;-)?

While in general I agree with your security concerns, here the links are from very trusted sources (Mozilla Internet Ecosystem and Mozilla's innovation group) and the user is well known (present on X too with a large following).

Re: "simplicity", sure for you and I it's simple to compile llama.cpp, but it's like asking a regular user to compile their applications themselves. It's not that simple for them, and should not be required if we want to make AI and OSS AI in particular more mainstream.

What's your experience with open source LLMs like LLaVA 1.5 or Mistral 7B?