rbtprograms

>If you build your platform well, then you can execute fast, but also safe.

this is extremely true, but it seems less and less like anyone wants to invest in a solid platform and just wants to jump to executing fast and unsafe. and then pretends that ai can definitely do both when the experience is quite a bit different.

at the end of it: is anything of value delivered to customers? the company might say "well users make the games with AI, we just serve them and host the multiplayer." okay, but again, what value was created? they brag about being one of anthropic's top customers; congrats you are handing VC money to anthropic. why should i care? theres no answer for why anyone should care, because to them the system and clout is the product, the product doesnt actually matter.

at least thats my read on it. i dont know how else to understand whats going on here.

none of these types of pieces of content focus on what was created for users, its always about how sky high their "shipping" metrics are (PRs merged, LoC, etc). it makes it extremely hard for me to care, as they all boil down to "im a dev who made some loops on loops on loops that writes a lot of code and spends a lot of tokens."

i will say, at least this article says "we merge 5x more and our revert rate has stayed the same." so thats at least a metric i can start to respect

well, i did go check out the company spawn from the article. its certainly interesting how hands off their process is and how much they ship, but holy shit the games were fucking horrible. there was a direct WoW ripoff (right down to the assets) that was unplayable, a racing simulator where my controls stopped working 10 second in, and some sort of RPG that i started and just never loaded. so i will take what they are saying with the heaviest possible grain of salt.

>The problem for me is that it's really hard to project what this industry is going to look like 6 months from now, let alone 6 years.

i keep thinking how crazy it is we went from ChatGPT releasing in 2022 to multi-trillion IPOs 4 years later. the industry still hasn't agreed on how to generally use anything. crazy times ahead.

interstingly i think what you are talking about is pretty apt, but not the way you are framing it. knitting and sewing were impactful things in their time; clothing has been something humans need for a long time and more skilled craftsmen were able to produce hgiher quality garments. new techniques increased durability, wearability, comfort, etc. machines commoditized that and made it mich faster to produce garments, so turned these into hobbies and the odd artisan fpcused and made new improvements, but not as often as before.

programming will likely be the same. fewer people who care to be craftsmen, more hobbyist, a few artisans who really dig deep and make new patterns (we still dont see AI sampling out of distribution).

>reduction of the job to a hobby takes that away from them.

this is your personal feeling. they never had anything in the first place, just that the market was valuing a certain skill for what it could output. the perspective you are posting is purely a construct.

i dont meant to come across as too harsh, but that is something that you will have to figure out. if companies are less inclined to give salaries for technical skills, then its on us to figure out how our current skill sets become marketable.

even the job of freelance engineer is customer relation. how good are you at extracting product requirements? understanding a clients workflows? these take relational skills and are often what freelancers are paid for, beyond the ability to produce code.

cops are Joe Average with badges and a higher rate of spousal abuse.

several people on my team cannot even reason with decisions their code made, why architecture is a certain way, etc. without consulting their agent. its the thinking that is falling off, i dont care about the code nearly as much as the critical thinking part.

myopic systems are one thing. developers and product leaders outright refusing to even click on pages and test features before they go to production is worse than their orgs simply being bad. many developers i work with can barely even reason with decisions anymore without consulting the agent. it is worse than simply saying the orgs are bad.

this is so accurate it hurts. the amount of my coworkers who just outright have handed any and all thinking over to the computer is staggering. its not just senior either, plenty of devs at the lead and staff level are producing complete garbage that has to be rolled back within an hour of deploy because it is extremely broken, no one verified, and it passed automated checks.

there are several features over the last few months that were obviously made and deployed and no one even launched the dev server and tried a single thing to verify if it was right. just "pull my ticket, do my ticket, push my ticket. i am a developer."

I think the success of expanded offshoots (OSRS, TurtleWow, Ascension, etc.) showed there is plenty of demand for games that add new features to older, slower, and more sociable games. many features in wow forever are lifted directly from some of these offshoots. blizzard leaning into things like sd models, no flying mounts shows this is beyond just nostalgia bait (something wow classic has been poked for) and indicates that these older iterations that had less streamlined experiences can still have a lot of juice if brought in new directions.

only on the surface, plenty of places have moved out of the big tech ecosystem to models hosted at smaller providers or even self hosted. its not the majority of work but is growing.

youre not wrong, but i think you are missing his base point. tao is saying that mathematics is a practice that the group collectively builds. students and new methods are built on top of what has previously been done, so its a community effort of research, experimentation, and knowledge sharing.

his core argument that is LLMs (and specifically LLMs owned and gated by corporations was my read), while able to solve problems, do not contribute to this practice of knowledge building. solving problems is just one piece, and the mathematics community ingests problems and new methods, iterates and thinks on them, and then produces new ideas, methods, etc. this is what he is defining as progress, and solving things like millenium problems are markers of this progress.

Tao basically reiterating "AI is making us dumber" a bit more eloquently and applied to math.