LLMs amplify this behaviour.

Or maybe just maybe... the thing should be much better designed around the human.

That's how personal computers made their way into homes. People like yourself are comical and can't understand how widespread adoption takes place to obtain value from what the thing intrinsically possesses.

Firms literally exist to take care of the hassle so that the person can get the value from the thing closer to the present - like hello...?

I’m starting to realise, many people and the management themselves don’t really understand why the firm exists, and what they do. Funny to watch tbh

No, just no.

I believe the llm providers went with the wrong approach from the off - the focus should’ve been on complementing labour not displacement. And I believe they have learned an expensive lesson along the way.

I believe this is a common fault of not being able to zoom out and look at what trade offs are being made. There’s always trade-offs, the question is whether you can define them and then do the analysis to determine whether the result leaves you in a net benefit state.

The question is will these firms be able to continue to spend at that rate. The managers of the firms don’t necessarily have control over that - ultimately punishment in the form of drop in stock price hurts many people involved and will force the management to act in the interest of marginal investors. Even Zuckerberg who has majority control had to concede when meta’s stock cratered to below 100.

Im beginning to realise people who are too concentrated on one dimension (e.g software engineering) can’t see how things actually fit together. You only know what you know I guess.. but it’s blindly obvious to me.

If engineers already know up front with clarity what they need to build, and, the leadership are very focused and concentrate resources on doing a few things.. then increasing the rate at which LOC is written is not beneficial - because getting the product built right is what matters.