Personally, as someone with a German company and a good chunk of German clients, I'd argue it _does_ help a little. Occasionally. But by and large I'm far more interested in the candidate's English proficiency.

I think to some degree, that effect is also at play here. CEOs, product managers etc are simply amazed, and want to spread the good news. I doubt they can even _comprehend_ that others might not be as excited as them.

Then again, SEO gaming got a whole lot cheaper with LLMs, spammers spam even if there's not a great return, as long as it's cheap for them.

In other terms, I feel the argument from TFA generally checks out, just on a different level than "more GPU wins". It's one up: "More money wins". That's based on the premise that more capable models will be more expensive, and using more of it will increase the likelihood of finding an exploit, as well as the total cost. What these model providers pay for GPUs vs R&D, or what their profit margin is, I'd consider less central.

But then again, AI didn't change this, if you have more money you can find more exploits: Whether a model looks for them or a human.

Been dual booting for >20 years now. It's nice that some games work on Linux pretty well these days, and of course I had fun messing with Wine manually to get some stuff to work decades ago. But it really doesn't bother me too much to reboot when switching between gaming and literally anything else.

Well, sort of maybe, but it's not always economical. For a normal web app - yeah I guess. Depends on the complexity of the software and the environment / inputs it deals with.

And then there's explorative testing, where I always found a good QA invaluable. Sure, you can also automate that to some degree. But someone who knows the software well and tries to find ways to get it to behave in unexpected ways, also valuable.

I would agree that solid development practices can handle 80% of the overall QA though, mainly regression testing. But those last 20%, well I think about those differently.

Well, yeah? Just because the current work safety situation is bad, doesn't mean being out of a job couldn't be worse. I'd love a world where more automation meant less, safer, higher paying work for everyone. Our world never worked like that, to my knowledge, and I'm not sure it ever will.

1. Check frequency (between every single time and spot checks).

2. Check thoroughness (between antagonistic in-depth vs high level).

I'd agree that, if you're towards the end of both dimensions, the system is not generating any value.

A lot of folks are taking calculated (or I guess in some cases, reckless) risks right now, by moving one or both of those dimensions. I'd argue that in many situations, the risk is small and worth it. In many others, not so much.

We'll see how it goes, I suppose.

Not sure that's how the math goes. TFA mentions every employed worker has a team behind them, and is often successful in their job as a result.

Kinda fascinating. Here we are, usually dreaming about how one person could do multiple jobs. There they are, having multiple people do one job in the best (looking) way.

If the spec doesn't specify all the details, then there are gaps for the code to fill. For example, code for a UI is highly specific, down to the last pixel. A spec might say "a dialog with two buttons, labelled OK and cancel". That dialog would look different every time the spec is reimplemented.

Unless of course, there was also a spec for the dialog, that we could refer to in the other spec? That's really just code and reuse.

But it's still a non-trivial activity with long feedback loops, that requires a level of expertise.

Making workers easily exchangeable requires processes that ultimately underutilise their abilities, finding the lowest common denominator. Some businesses clearly can and want to afford that. Pretty much by definition, that leads to mediocre work.

From what I gather, a good chunk, if not the majority of agency work serves that particular need. But there's plenty of clients out there that want something else. Like all of mine.

I'd consider shipping LLM generated code without review risky. Far riskier than shipping human-generated code without review.

But it's arguably faster in the short run. Also cheaper.

So we have a risk vs speed to market / near term cost situation. Or in other words, a risk vs gain situation.

If you want higher gains, you typically accept more risk. Technically it's a weird decision to ship something that might break, that you don't understand. But depending on the business making that decision, their situation and strategy, it can absolutely make sense.

How to balance revenue, costs and risks is pretty much what companies do. So that's how I think about this kind of stuff. Is it a stupid risk to take for questionable gains in most situations? I'd say so. But it's not my call, and I don't have all the information. I can imagine it making sense for some.

> You cannot succeed in design services unless you really believe in your clients and your client’s products. Just as it’s essential to enjoy working with the people you form a company with, working with clients that you like is essential too.

Yup. Otherwise you're just "implementing specifications", which I'd argue is generally not the best form of collaboration.

> I’ve known lots of people who got into services thinking that they can use the income from clients to bankroll their own product ideas. That is not an impossible scenario — it’s been done before more than a few times, and it’s a beautiful thing when it happens. But it’s very, very difficult to pull off. To do services, you need to wake up in the morning with a different approach to life from the way you wake up in the morning to do products, and only a few people have the skill — and stamina — to juggle both at once.

Yup, I don't think anyone I know (and not myself either) pulled this off. I bet many did, just from anecdotal evidence I'd consider it rare, and subjectively, I agree that it's hard.

> Most clients, when they hire a design studio, take the attitude that the studio is lucky to work with them, that they selected them from a plentiful pool of design companies bidding on their business. To many clients, design studios are, in a sense, interchangeable. [...] This is a deadly position for a design studio because it essentially commoditizes the studio’s value.

Yup. If clients start comparing hourly rates, they are a) making a rather meaningless comparison, looking only at a single factor in a larger equation and b) going to try and haggle you down, which is unpleasant for both sides.

I usually give a rough estimate of what I think it's gonna cost, and then we talk about what _not_ to do and where to cut corners to get it down to the ballpark of the budget, if needed.

That's not even all, but I have a feeling my comment shouldn't end up exceeding TFA in length.

If both can WFH, they can even choose the place they want to live in regardless of where their optimal employment options are based.

Not on all dimensions, of course. People with kids e.g. will have to find a solution for who gets to work how much, it's a similar conflict WFH addresses partly at best.