But writing code was never much more than 35-40% of my job while working for companies/others. Most my time has always gone towards communication, design, and validation. All three of those are not particularly vulnerable to mass AI automation except for the most trivial of scenarios and I have not seen evidence that has changed in over 2 years of so called "improvements".

My "exit plan" ultimately is to be one of the engineers capable of using these tools to scale my impact accordingly so I can focus on higher order problem solving, which ultimately is what is most valuable. I would be more concerned if I was in marketing/sales or frankly middle management.

Maybe this is just "copium" on my part, who knows, this sector is moving fast.

I've said this in the past and I'll continue to say it - until the tools get far better at managing context, they will be hard locked for value in most use cases. The moment I see "summarizing conversation" I know I'm about to waste 20 minutes fixing code.

AI is basically a toy for 99% of us. It's a long long ways away from the productivity boost people love to claim to justify the sky high valuations. It will fade to being a background tech employed strategically I suspect - similar to other machine learning applications and this is exactly where it belongs.

I'm forced to use it (literally, AI usage is now used as a talent review metric...) and frankly, it's maybe helped speed me up... 5-10%? I spend more time trying to get the tools to be useful than I would just doing the task myself. The only true benefit I've gotten has been unit test generation. Ask it to do any meaningful work on a mature code base and you're in for a wild ride. So there's my anecdotal "sentiment".

The tools need to figure out how to manage context for us. This isn't something we have to deal with when working with other humans - we reliably trust that other humans (for the most part) retain what they are told. Agentic use now is like training a team mate to do one thing, then taking it out back to shoot it in the head before starting to train another one. It's inefficient and taxing on the user.

When I see stuff like "Amazon saved 4500 dev years of effort by using AI", I know it's on stuff that we would use automation for anyways so it's not really THAT big of a difference over what we've done in the past. But it sounds better if we just pretend like we can compare AI solutions to literally having thousands of developers write Java SDK upgrades manually.

But in general, I tend to side with the "lets leave the math to purpose built models/applications" instead of generalized LLMS. LLMs are great if you are just aiming for "good enough to get through next quarter" type results. If you need 100% accuracy, an LLM isn't going to cut it.

Links to pay wall trying to get me to pay for some subscription service I've never heard of and would never want to sign up for sight unseen.

mmmhmmm

And it works maybe... 80% of the way and I spend all my time fixing the remaining 20%. Anecdotally I don't "feel" like this really accelerates me or reduces the time it would take me to do the change if I just implemented the translation manually.

Perpetuating a broken system isn't an argument about the threat of AI. It's just highlighting a system that needs revitalization (and AI/LLMs is not that tool).

Fact is, even if they are capable of fully replicating and even replacing actual human thought, at best they regurgitate what has come before. They are, effectively, a tutor (as another commentator pointed out).

A human still needs to consume their output and act on it intelligently. We already do this, except with other tools/mechanisms (i.e. other humans). Nothing really changes here...

I personally still don't see the actual value of LLMs being realized vs their cost to build anytime soon. I'll be shocked if any of this AI investment pays off beyond some minor curiosities - in ten years we're going to look back at this period in the same way we look at cryptocurrency now - a waste of resources.

I'm only 20% joking here...

I do appreciate the other major theme of the announcement today: removal of bureaucracy and pointless layers of management. I'm hoping this will lead to a collapse of some of these silly little empires/kingdoms that L7-L8s have built up for themselves in the past 6 years.

Sure I miss out on some things, but I still have friends and family and I still talk to them. I won't make any broad moralistic/judgemental statements here, but for me at least I've found this to be a return to a healthier relationship with a number of people.

For better or worse, the vast majority of my media consumption is youtube these days and of all the subs I pay for, it's the one I get the most value out of. I don't get the cynicism.

They aren't bullying anyone. They are trying to make a business model work as efficiently as possible. Anything that relies on ad revenue is going to be predatory like this.

Doesn't help for those who need a mouse device (cad/design/photo-editing, etc), but for what I use it for (software dev/ops work), it's great. Trackpads in a windows ecosystem feel absolutely horrendous to me, so I just use mice there lol.

I encounter the same thing when dealing with code reviews as well - people love to document the WHAT or HOW of things, but rarely if ever consider talking about WHY it matters, or WHO it matters too.

To borrow from a favourite corpo speak: answer the "so what" for the reader to make something actually useful to more people.