I wouldn't call it psychosis though. He's committing a natural fallacy where expertise in one area doesn't lend itself to expertise in another.

If I recall correctly, Ed Zitron noted in a recent article that one of the horsemen of his AI-pocalypse would be price hikes from providers.

Why is it anti-human to suggest that an underwater basket weaver should not make the same amount of money as a neurosurgeon?

It would be nice if that were true.

AI has exacerbated this issue. Suddenly we're faced with the uncomfortable truth that much of human artwork is "mid" as the kids would say and people aren't willing to pay for songs, writing, and/or graphics the way they otherwise might.

Anyway, I'm very curious if anyone has a good argument for why anyone who wishes to be an artist is owed a living wage for merely their desire to be recognized as economically valuable.

Claude is almost annoyingly good at pushing back on suggestions because my global CLAUDE.md file says to do so. I rarely get Claude "you're absolutely right"ing me because I tell it to push back.

Was he important? Genuinely curious because all I know is cultural vibes.

I use agents all day, every single day. But I also push back, understand what was written, and ensure I read and understand everything I ship.

Does it slow me down? Uh, yup. You bet.

Yes, this article literally advocates for slowing the fuck down, but it also makes the coding agents out to be the problem, but they're not.

I think the next big movement in tech will be ALL companies becoming tech companies. Right now there are hundreds of thousands of "small" companies with big enough budgets to pay for a CTO to modernize their stack and lead them into the 21st century.

The problem is they don't know they have this problem and so they aren't actively hiring for a CTO. You've got to go find them and insert yourself as the solution.

Microsoft has proven itself the undisputed king of enshittification and a blog post will not change my mind on that.

Maybe my grandkids will give it a shot.

You don't hear architects get hounded because they say they "built" some building even though it was definitely the guys swinging hammers that built it. But yet, somehow because he didn't artisanally hand-craft the code, he needs to caveat that he didn't actually build it?

The fact that I happen to care about other things more than this specific flavor of global catastrophe is morally OK.

Of the very few "f*cks" I can give in my life, I prefer to spend mine as I choose rather than being scolded for not giving mine to the pressing issues that others deem important.

Many of my clients are blown away by what our teams can do with 1 senior engineer now.

Anything below enterprise level software should be thinking very hard about what team composition actually needs to look like to achieve good results. It's likely a lot smaller headcount than it used to be.

What if Anthropic just shrugged, dissolved the company and open-sourced all of the Opus weights? Could this harm OpenAI and advance AI in a reasonable way?

Look I know it's an insane idea. I'm just curious what the most unhinged response to this might be.