Just because the entire industry was doing bad things does not absolve the largest members of the industry from doing bad things. They were leading the charge!

You can't seriously argue that everyone can just drop a mainstream communication tool without acknowledging the lack of replacements.

I don't disagree that there are reasons people compromise on things like the morality of their employer - tale as old as society itself. I do disagree that many people like Meta's services - the only things I have seen people like about Meta is Facebook Marketplace (which is really just Craig's List or eBay if you are looking at technical problems) or the Meta Quest VR (which they've since gutted employment wise since the metaverse debacle).

Not only is it a morally bad employer, but it's also not a very good employer overall. They've just got institutional inertia keeping them entrenched, and are trying to buy their way into AI dominance to boot.

It's hard to imagine a tech company with more clear disdain for their employees than Meta. To me, that seems like a recipe for a dead company, but by all means, build your resume and network.

*Edit: people also use Instagram, but the engineering problems with that are also found in newer social networks like Bluesky, with a little less engagement addiction focus.

Not a very wise solution in my opinion.

One thing I'd posit is that it might not be the people, but rather an ability or skill people can improve. It takes difficulty and focus and time, but it can be honed. I know this to be true; otherwise I would not be able to understand that which I dismissed years ago!

The problem with this, if it is an active ability rather than a person's inherent traits, is that it becomes impossible to recognize by any identifiable markers. I've often found that some of the most intelligent and "look at the problem from all angles" kind of minds often have very glaring blind spots (look no further than political subjects, for example). These blind spots manifest even in the most generally intelligent thinkers, that's what makes people human after all. So it can be said that good thinking is a very delicate thing, and it can be difficult to recognize against noise no matter who is speaking or what they are discussing.

The "elusive dream" of 'write once, run anywhere' is realistically just people wanting to write software with direct product or service use in mind. Native OS conventions are subject to the middlemen of OS vendors, whereas the web (while basically subject to the same vendors) makes a substantial attempt at bridging the gap of writing software for your own purposes without native OS problems. This is a symptom of OSes catering/selling to developers as a platform and hooking them in the 1990s and 2000s.

This attitude that wanting to just make useful code for people and not worry about a windows 11 update breaking everything because they are irresponsible - to think that is not a valid desire is IMO a big problem.

On the other hand, you have a point that it quickly gets out of hand in terms of standards and accessibility and performance bottlenecks. WebAssembly and the WASI are so slow to come out and will by design always be slower than native performance. This doesn't and shouldn't stop us from having decently performant and decently usable program experiences, but it is a prerequisite to care about those things, and the other inheritors of the web development sphere clearly do not want to develop things properly if they take longer than the next fiscal quarter.

There is 100% good Electron code out there, just as 100% there is bad native OS code. The problem isn't inherently the goals of the 'write once, run anywhere' idea; it's more the casualty of other interests pulling away from what developers actually want.

See this thread from a few days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48118727

The economics of software creation is changing, so it stands to reason how people engage with software will change too. Finding a niche may be a game of luck more than observation/perspiration at this stage, similar to discovering oil on your "barren" property rather than building a farm. As someone who's generally independent, though: I'd love to be wrong here!

One thing that I would point to today to show that the landscape is different - the average programmer/engineer/developer today has no actual admin staff. Fred Brooks' example team setup of "The Surgical Team" has more support staff than programmers. Anyone who responds to the questions like "who manages the calendar" and "who manages the documentation" will state that the engineers doing it themselves offer the best results. Same goes for designing test cases, performing rollbacks, etc.

The fact of the matter is that any self respecting engineer today works in an environment where pro-activity and self-sufficiency are prerequisites. Managing your calendar and workload, communicating to leadership and users, these are all common tasks that would have been another person a generation ago.

So when discussing writing code more efficiently and aiding in software development, what I am essentially seeing is more people trying everything they can to offload work that used to be another person's job anyway. If you care about communication - you offload coding standards. If you care about security - you offload feature refactors, and so on.

In my opinion, I think that at some point we'll either realize that we need highly competent people _and also_ regular people to help us ensure the work gets done to a good standard. Or, we will each eventually survive by working alone in a room with a suite of AI tools, and wonder why we're still making software in the first place.

LOL can't disagree with that opinion.

As another commenter said, the affordability of LLM subscriptions (or, as others are predicting, the lack thereof) is the primary concern, not the technology itself stealing away your skills.

I am far from the definitive voice in the does-AI-use-corrupt-your-thinking conversation, and I don't want to be. I don't want LLMs to replace my thinking as much as the next person, but I also don't want to shun anything useful that can be gained from these tools.

All that said, I do feel that perhaps "dumber" LLMs that work on-device first will allow us to get further and be better, more reliable tools overall.

LLM code can be leveraged, but pretending that tokens are just going to turn into money printers at some point is not productive. The primary source of software's value to an end user is the thought that was placed into it. Where does that go for the AI-natives? As you say, they are seemingly brute forcing software engineering, at least so far.

One thing I have been considering is how LLMs primarily change the "build vs buy" calculus for a fair number of software niches, particularly things like developer tooling and small libraries and packages. Partially due to a projected increase in supply chain attacks, and partially due to the changing standards of engineers. There's no longer anything stopping someone from working with an ugly or clunky syntax, presuming it's a well documented standard. So many "developer experience" tools are going to hit this - Tailwind primarily comes to mind.

It's a sort of "erosion" of niches in the current landscape - although to me this does not really work out for the worse in the long term, since again, the thinking in the process will need to just go somewhere else.

I do think that the open web stuff, decentralized, or at least more decentralized than currently, is the path forward. I've been reading about the AT protocol and it recently becoming an official working group with the IETF.

I feel a second order effect of making decentralized social networking easier, is making individuals more empowered to separate from what they don't believe in. The third order effect is then building separate infrastructure entirely.

As sad as that can be - in my personal opinion it runs the risk of ending the "world wide" part of the web - it appears to be the only way society can avoid enriching the few beyond reason.