randysalami

I'm sorry but my first thought after reading:

"You should be writing essays, recording tutorials, training, music, conversations, etc. the kind of things you care about... If they do, they will pay you because they will rather part with money than part with your work"

Is an AI company webcrawler sucking up your novel work, for free, only to goop it out to everyone else without compensating you a dime. And while you worked so hard to genuinely create something, that won't be amplified by internet algorithms so no real human will see it, another person will do a dance or be funny, edgy, unethical, controversial, and get 1000x the human eyeballs, money, and power - probably using AI to write the very words they regurgitate.

It's a sad world after all.

So generalist vs specialist? Or synthesizing across many domains rather than hyper-fixating on a single domain?

There was a recent post on here with a Claude Code issue I and others responses to. Specifically, the person from Anthropic who caused the issue replied on HackerNews. In it, he claimed he was the sole contributor and reviewer of the code into production, that he would “do better” in the future. Commenters were confused how a company like Anthropic could allow something like this occur and for an engineer to publicly admit a complete failure and negligence of build processes.

It’s clear seeing your post here a couple days later what’s going on. It’s deliberate. I can only speculate on their reasons why but it seems to be an intentional form of disrespect on the engineering culture. “Your norms, your work, your principles” mean nothing. We can spend money and invalidate your life’s work. We don’t need your consent or support. That’s my personal guess at a surface level.

Sometimes being unserious is actually very serious. See current US administration.

Right, so if I understand correctly, to make the code fully safe, it can be impossible? Because you have underlying dependencies which are unsafe. The best you can do is make the handling of the unsafe as safe and as restricted as possible. But I can imagine some of these are way more difficult than others, and in programming the last 10% can be the last 90% of the work. Alas in terms of perceptions, the argument works well.

Proof is more exposure. Substantiate the claim, no longer anonymous enough. Face retribution.

To your penultimate part, I remember when I was younger, I always wanted to be a software engineer. Those obsessive, dissociative traits I cultivated because they seemed so welcome at the places which young me wanted to work (Google, Facebook mainly). And those places seemed so right (and paid so well). As I got older, I realized there was way more nuance. What I once thought were strictly virtues to be lauded… had more gray than I imagined. I don’t think a lot of people in our field have or will have that wake-up.

And I think this is a big part of the problem. Being a shell of a human does not lend yourself well to empathy and solidifies your ego and that you are “worth” more than others, reinforced with a lucrative salary, praise, and those perks you mention.

Hey, mistakes happen. As we saw with the recent AWS billing issue. But Anthropic is a leading company that makes cutting-edge AI which will kill people. It’s literally a matter of life and death and at this point, it is the place to be if you want to be the best. So as an institution, I don’t want human answers, I want the right, most professional answers. We used to have it. Human responses with every word chosen to maximize every aspect that needs to be maximized, by engineer grey beards no less! And maybe they don’t want to have it. That’s why I made my original comment. Maybe it’s a strategic decision to allow this kind of accountability in a public forum. I think it’s wanton but others might find it refreshing.

And to clarify why it even matters to me is, these firms are in competition within the US and outside. Every decision by every person has an effect. Moves like this have a cost. I’d have imagined that at the level these companies operate, any public facing engineer only communicates correctly with the proper perspectives in mind... We have more data points now we didn’t have before.

To drive the point home, now we and every other competitor knows, for free, processes that are going on at Anthropic, that in my opinion make them (as a company) look weak. I

It’s also an unforced error in my eyes for a multi-billion dollar company with competitors in the US and outside. Mistakes happen but no reason to turn a mistake into a revelation about processes that leaves no ambiguity, one that leaves the mythos (pun) of your company less than before.

This is the kind of weakness I was alluding to… internal information that shows dysfunction is now shown to the public and there is no ambiguity. People pay attention and there is a low tolerance for unforced errors.

I read the article but I find this response kind of strange. Am I alone in this?

Wanton accountability for a multi-billion dollar cutting edge company… leaves more to be desired from the best? Take Apple or Google or any top tech company of the past at its prime and compare. This kind of behavior then would probably reflect poorly on the institutions behind the tech and not maintain their image of technical brilliance because it shows weakness in a vulnerable way. It is human. It is not strategic.

By wanton accountability, I mean things like saying “This was my change!” or “ wanted to apologize and agree that this did not meet our bar and does not represent how we plan to ship on Claude Code”. It makes them (the company) look weak? Accountability is important but where, how, and when you do it is even more important. These stakes are, not joking, life and death, and in this big game of chess we get paid for, naivety not only in our technical implementation can weaken our position.

Not trying to attack, just trying to learn and probe with the community. Maybe a cost of this kind of transparency on the internet. I am wondering if this a new trend and tech companies are changing in a way I don’t understand! In any case, it’s really cool work that is being with Claude Code!

I see your comment is not popular but I agree. I think it’s because it’s easier to take value than it is to create it from scratch. One requires empathy, creativity, the other only requires greed. Or maybe it is a zero-sum game.

Haha. I had the opposite thought. If they are very privileged, wouldn’t they rely more? I guess there is privileged you make yourself and privileged you are born into and then more easily make for yourself. But if you are the latter and can support yourself, would you really then do it entirely on your own and not still benefit/rely from/on your parents? I’m not sure (and yes I am including family vacations, connections, and other kinds of arrangements).

Sorry rethinking this was a very insensitive way to put things. Too late to edit or delete. But it is a complete human tragedy that set the stage for generational trauma like no point before in human history due to rapid industrialization among other things.

Modesty and humility? Then they would need to pay me 400k!!

I put something similar another comment. What you describe is a tough job that requires dedication and the ability to objectively differentiate yourself through your work across multiple disciplines. I’ll copy it here: “The real question is how do they actually reward the people who excel in this role, and do they really recognize who’s delivering or do they look at gamey metrics and pedigree” I worked at a technical consultant out of college and it was a lot of the first category but often my small team did step 2. Yet it was never promoted by the larger corporate hierarchy because the incentives were not there. I would love to a job like this because I’m so nerdy but also charismatic and have perspective. Knowing myself and how dedicated I would be, I wouldn’t take anything less than 250kz

If I did that to the best of my ability, I’d want to be a boss and not a chump. The real question is how do they actually reward the people who excel in this role, and do they really recognize who’s delivering or do they look at gamey metrics and pedigree. These are important questions for the EV calculation

I like to think WW1 and WW2 was the collective suicide of the West, at least in Europe. So much power lost, both in terms of empire and people, impossible to ever recover. I guess from my learning, it was inevitable, there was no other path where they could have not killed each other and blown up their empires. Alas.

Granted they are publicly traded and sure organized racket money dwarves for a policy traded company. However, if we step back from the making money side, there are real sovereign reasons for wanting to explicitly and implicitly allow for bot networks to operate.

First and foremost is the destruction of organization of people. If you’ll recall, Reddit used to be an oasis of the internet. Growing up, I was always in awe of the intelligent and impactful discussions that would occur organically (something Hacker News can’t even rival). Now, it’s slop.

There is real value there that Reddit is offering the government. I’m sure other foreign governments (the globalists) also benefit from a weaker people. So I’d imagine it’s the kind of racket that is so high-up, secretive, and decentralized that there is no real culpability and everyone is aware (except the people).

Holy hell!! The fact that this name still rings out to me years later really says something! And at one point /r/Games was the gaming subreddit for more informed people (compared to /r/gaming). And then one day somebody pointed out a guy named “TurboStrider27” was responsible for a large amount of slop posts. Lo-and-behold, a majority of posts did come from him.

I had no idea this was implicitly permitted (and even supported) but it makes sense if it’s been ongoing for so long. It’s no accident.

Reddit must have some mechanism specifically for non-spamming bots that isn’t covered in this article. I wonder how it works. I imagine the mechanisms are more complex and opaque than anti-spam (with various levels being exposed to the hierarchies of Reddit and government backdoors). These days, I’ve noticed an almost forcing-function that operates to put the minimum spin needed on posts and comments to turn signal to noise. It seems smart enough to not only generate noisy comments but create comments to amplify existing organic noisy comments. I’m sure these systems are decentralized, emergent, and split across numerous nation-states and actors. I’m also fairly certain what we have now is a tenuous balance that has emerged from all these actors and Reddit policing actions as well.

I imagine Reddit has a high-level of insight into this and a certain level of permissibility it grants, both to inflate user counts and to steer public discourse and insight into less productive mean (or productive to certain interest groups at the expense of the people). I think is also an effect that Reddit has become more global and consensus of the USA people is very antagonistic to the consensus of the people of the world so that doesn’t help (+ access to LLMs to make English writing no longer a barrier to entry).

“But I can't help but have some nostalgia for how things were pre-AI. Work felt more honest, the skills I spent years building felt more valuable, and I was more satisfied at work.”

I am 25 but as someone who came into this field very passionate and competent, this was my initial reaction and it sat uncomfortably with me for many months. I still have nostalgia (mainly from a younger age). On work feeling more honest, I think this is a result of an institutional attack on software engineering rather than a new reality of these tools. Like what happens to many other labor forces in history as you mention with artisan cobblers. In some ways it is a consequence of technology but it definitely also weaponized to hurt labor and consolidate power.

In the case of AI-assisted coding, this manifests in a culture of distrust and disrespect toward engineers, both from the bottom-up and top-down. Managers will devalue their engineers by using AI to bypass them. Peers and reports will use AI to exaggerate progress in lockstep with management. No is no longer an easy vocabulary choice when dealing with power because previously technical prowess was definitive, now it can be made “advisory”. I think this is very wrong and stupid but the market can be irrational longer than you can be solvent or something like that.

I still think it is though, that technical knowledge is still supreme. Maybe this is a cope but I find AI tooling very empowering (minus the walled garden nature of it which can be mitigated through local usage but this is problematic in its own regard). Management, pundits, and tech CEOs can frame it however they want but I feel more technically capable than at any point of my technology journey. Not at work, not in academia, but objectively from me knowing myself. We can do more in less time if we know what to do.

Yes! And more projects. And you have the freedom to try and fail.

Was thinking of a comparison, cars are faster than walking. Imagine saying, no I prefer only walking. It is healthier than sitting in a car and your legs will atrophy. That is very much true (and we can see the consequences in car dominated societies). Nevertheless, for many industries cars are very important. You don’t say, I would rather carry all these pallets by hand rather than use a forklift.

LLMs are similar in my mind. They turbocharge your output in all senses but is less holistic than hand-coding. Like cars, you are making a trade off but I don’t think it’s fully a replacement. We still walk with cars in our lives. And we don’t eschew cars because they are “worse” for you than walking. We adapt and make tradeoffs

Wow. Disgusting. The decline of the west in a nutshell.

Depends where in Europe. Lots of Europeans suffer so other Europeans can prosper. Add to the fact that Europe still benefits from imperialism and that Europe is facing an existential crisis, I would take be the average American long-term.

So cool. One reading is “complexity is not what you believe it is”. Another is “complexity is”… “not what you believe it is”. Seems similar but the difference is subtle. Even the “please try listening” line changes in both versions. One is confrontational, the other is empathetic.

I’ve noticed the same thing and this creates such a negative user experience. Every short is a reaction test and if I fail, I get slop. Makes the whole experience very jarring (for better or for worse).

A use case I’ve been working through is learning a language (not programming). You can use LLMs to translate and write for you in another language but you will not be able to say, I know that language, no matter how much you use the LLM.

Now compare this to using the LLM with a grammar book and real world study mechanisms. This creates friction which actually causes your mind to learn. The LLM can serve as a tool to get specialized insight into the grammar book and accelerate physical processes (like generating all forms of a word for writing flashcards). At the end of day, you need to make an intelligent separation where the LLM ends and your learning begins.

I really like this contrast because it highlights the gap between using an LLM and actually learning. You may be able to use the LLM to pass college level courses in learning the language but unless you create friction, you actually won’t learn anything! There is definitely more nuance here but it’s food for thought

Quantum inference. Mark my words and give it 20+ years.

What do you mean? Like culturally it is not in the nature or because of bias from stakeholders that are not from SEA?