I couldn't agree more. "Vibe coding" is pretty cool, but it's not sustainable at least with with current technology. You're much better off being a knowledgeable developer who can guide an an LLM to write code for you.
One thing I will agree on though is that LLMs make it easier to iterate or try ideas and see if they'll work. I've been doing that a ton in my projects where I'll ask an LLM to build an interface and then if I like it I'll clean it up and or rebuild it myself.
I doubt that I'll ever use Figma to design, it's just too foreign to me. But LLMs let me work in a medium that I understand (code) while iterating quickly and trying ideas that I would never attempt because I wouldn't and be sure if they'd work out and it would take me a long time to implement them visually.
Really, that's where LLMs shine for me. Trying out an idea that you would even be capable of doing, but it would take you a long time. I can't tell you how many scripts I've asked ChatGPT or similar to write that I am fully capable of writing, but the return on investment just would not be there if I had to write it all by by hand. Additionally, I will use them to write scripts to debug problems or analyze logs/files. Again, things that I am perfectly capable of doing but would never do in the middle of a production issue because they would take too long and wouldn't necessarily yield results. With an LLM, I feel comfortable trying it out because at worst I'd burn a minute or two of of time and at best I can save myself hours. The return on investment just isn't there if it would take me 30 minutes to write that script and only then find out if it was useful or not.
LLMs are better search. Google burned down the house to keep itself warm and held off on LLMs until it was inevitable and are now pulling up ahead. This is the logical conclusion. LLMs will be monetized and enshitified by ads.
Soon, some free smart LLM code generators will stop generating certain outputs and instead suggest using commercial components that have paid for promotion.
That’s great, and the polar opposite of how I experienced layoffs (of others, then eventually of me).
But one thing that could be better is transparency around severance, so you know in advance what it will be should you get laid off. (Six months may or may not be “generous” depending on tenure.)
When I was laid off we got what was “customary” in that country, but before the offer was on the table nobody was sure we’d get it. It’s so much nicer when this is a matter of law — I’m all for a ~ free labor market but severance requirements help to balance the risk so the employees can relax and do their best work.
Dudes sitting in a smoky room: “Yeah, so the pig’s a big fat pig with mobility issues and get this, he stutters hahahaha gonna sell like moonshine, go tell the artists.”
I'm sure it impugns many of the classics (and later), not only Garfield! In my mind, it does impugn He-Man, G.I. Joe, etc. YMMV, of course.
> Dudes sitting in a smoky room: “Yeah, so the pig’s a big fat pig with mobility issues and get this, he stutters hahahaha gonna sell like moonshine, go tell the artists.”
There was a lot of artistry in the Looney Toons, the artists were both doing it for the money (of course) but also out of love for cartoons and they had ideas about them. It wasn't pure cold hearted market research. They didn't go "what would sell more stuffed toys, a pig or a rabbit?".
There must have been some of this too, of course, but have you read memories or articles about Tex Avery and other people involved? They truly cared about their craft. They had ideas about what they wanted to achieve, and it wasn't just "make money".
Good points, and to be honest I love the older, meaner cartoons. But cute Mickey and cute p-p-p-Porky differed from their originals for the same reason as the “Garfield is a lasagna” joke stopped making visual sense.
“Prove you’re deaf” would be a pretty rude thing to say, but you also don’t want to hire someone who’s lying about a disability. Presumably you’d do some kind of vetting before an in-person interview, and certainly before a hire.
Anyway in Germany I bet there’s a Taubenausweis (Gehöhrlosigkeitsbescheinigung?) or other form of official status marker, and the employer would expect you to show it to HR.
What's wrong with asking people to prove they're disabled? There definitely exist people that lie about being disabled too. Many places have a persons with disability certificate given by the government, so "proving", just means entering the ID of that certificate in a form.
> What's wrong with asking people to prove they're disabled
It's dehumanizing, it's lacking empathy, and it usually ends up having people trivialise the problem a person might suffer from.
As long as the disability doesn't prevent a person from executing their contractual obligations, gatekeeping a position behind "you need to be able to function in society" is an indecent request to people that have difficulties doing so.
And from personal experience, once you're in the second half of your life, looking for an autism diagnosis and then using that to fight the gauntlet of bureaucracy required to get a government approved "stigma certificate" is a chore that really eats into one's provision of spoons.
I for one would like my manager and my employer to understand when I tell them I have trouble in loud open spaces with many people and disruptions, and I would prefer to do my job at home in a comfortable environment.
How do you propose I demonstrate to you that being in an office severely impairs my ability to reason about problems and write code? Is heart rate enough? Are higher bugs per feature enough? Is being an asshole to people enough?
> As long as the disability doesn't prevent a person from executing their contractual obligations [...]
That's exactly the context. In the US, if you're being asked to prove a disability, it's part of a request for accommodations.
> And from personal experience, once you're in the second half of your life, looking for an autism diagnosis and then using that to fight the gauntlet of bureaucracy required to get a government approved "stigma certificate" is a chore that really eats into one's provision of spoons.
I'm in my 30s, but that's been my experience as well. Unfortunately, from personal experience as well, finding a new job after being fired with cause due to failing to obtain ADA protections really eats into one's spoons too.
> How do you propose I demonstrate to you that being in an office severely impairs my ability to reason about problems and write code? Is heart rate enough? Are higher bugs per feature enough? Is being an asshole to people enough?
Why guess? A diagnosis per the DSM by a qualified professional is how you demonstrate impairment. It's also how you guarantee accommodations. As a bonus, it often come with suggestions tailored to your specific disability.
> How do you propose I demonstrate...heart rate...bugs per feature...
Just a doctor's note/certificate actually.
> Fight the gauntlet of bureaucracy needed to get a government approved certificate is a chore
Well that is a separate problem. Yes, bureaucracy causes a lot of problems(even renewing your driver's license is a pain), but that doesn't mean the entire basis of needing to prove you are disabled should be thrown away. Everyone in their life faces shit bureaucracy, it's not news.
I'm not sure what kind of authority you have or in which jurisdiction you are to be able to say with such confidence that you need "just a doctor's note", but I was speaking from personal experience where a doctor's note was rejected as it wasn't specific enough to warrant an exception to the RTO mandate. And the doctor is not allowed to put the exact diagnosis in writing for the company. So currently it's a stale mate while everyone is trying to find an acceptable formula for what said doctor's note should say to satisfy the (in)human resources drones and their capitalist overlords.
I've worked under communist regime. A real one, a few decades ago, and let me tell you, they also demanded proof of disability. Did you have different experience?
I wasn't trying to claim that only capitalists dehumanize people. But that's what we mostly see today because that's the majority of our society.
When it comes to the types of disabilities that are being discussed in this thread and that I was referring to - to say varied types of autism - I doubt any type of organisation that treats employees as "resources" will work in a decent way.
Most “normies” have no idea what it can or cannot do, but they’ve heard at least the one buzzword and probably seen an ad for “Apple Intelligence.” Maybe had a laugh at the idea of an “AI boy/girlfriend” and would be curious to check it out.
I could be wrong of course, but my intuition is that only that tiny fraction of the population already following LLMs would potentially not want AI Stuff on their phones.
I get the point, but I don't think that's universally true. Especially in the less glamorous corners of the tech industry -- yes, you have some younger people looking to bounce, but most of the people who actually keep the lights on have full lives outside of work and all things being equal, they'd rather stick around than deal with the hassle of finding a new job. They're only going to leave if you create a toxic work environment or underpay them by double-digit percentages.
For those industries, I don't think they're getting much from the layoffs besides the short-term "we did layoffs" C-suite bonus. If you're in the Widgetmaker Control Systems industry, why do you want to make your workforce think they have to leave in 3-4 years?
They coexist with an extensive mass transit system in Bangkok. In smaller cities and tourist towns it’s the only thing going besides taxis and such.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Songthaew
reply