This is absolute nonsense. The app stores are already saturated with tons of free apps that no one uses. Sure the numbers are up—10x of infinity is still infinity—and the reason Apple doesn't care is because this is just the natural end game of their strategy to commoditize their complement.
When it comes to software subscriptions, the bar is just that much higher. Not only do you have to pass the threshold for someone to even adopt another app/website/brand, but now you have to provide enough utility to pay for it. Claude spitting out code for a good-enough clone of an app doesn't come anywhere near the threshold. An agent that can write the code, buy a domain, provision and maintain the database, and submit the app to the app store gets closer, but now it's not looking so cheap anymore, moreso in terms of your time commitment as defacto product manager than actual tokens and hosting costs.
The actual disruption of SaaS apps will come from agents that are capable of solving problems autonomously in a different way such that you don't even need the SaaS. I'm sure we'll get there in time, but not without a lot of data integrity and security issues, and rogue agent fuckups along the way.
I gotta say you really nailed a solid explanation for what I felt reading the OA but would not have been able to articulate it this clearly.
As someone who personally had a history of wanting to be right, sometimes at the expense of being effective, this is a lesson worth taking to heart.
What I’ve learned is that raw engineering chops and deep end-to-end thinking is highly valued if and only if you understand where leadership is trying to go and you bring people along in your vision. If you pitch your boss and they say no, you need to take it to heart and understand why, if you plow ahead vowing to show how right you were you are forcing them into an awkward position where you can only lose.
A lot of replies in the thread siding with the original author and indignant on their own terms about how they’ve been wronged by “corrupt” leaders. But this betrays a misunderstanding of how large orgs work. The nature of success is you have to subvert yourself to the whims of the organization, and only stick your neck out to challenge the status quo when you have sufficient air cover from someone higher up who believes in you. Corporations are often dysfunctional and anyone working within them can clearly see the flaws, but you’ve got to be clear eyed about what influence you have, and even then, pick your battles, or you’ll be rejected like an immune response from the organization.
Is it really fair to saddle the conscientious objectors with this critique? What about the people that stay and continue to profit exponentially as the negative outcomes become more and more clear? Are the anti-AI and anti-tech doomers who would never in a million years take a tech job actually more impactful in mitigating harms?
To be clear, I agree with the problem from a systemic perspective, I just don't agree with how blame/frustration is being applied to an individual in this case.
Is that the right word for it? I feel that a "conscious objector" is a powerless person whose only means of protesting an action is to refuse to do it. This researcher, on the other hand, helped build the technology he's cautioning about and has arguably profited from it.
If this researcher really thinks that AI is the problem, I'd argue that the other point raised in the article is better: stay in the organization and be a PITA for your cause. Otherwise, for an outside observer, there's no visible difference between "I object to this technology so I'm quitting" and "I made a fortune and now I'm off to enjoy it writing poetry".
Nuremberg/just following orders might fly if we were talking about a cashier at Dollar General.
This is a genius tech bro who ignored warnings coming out institutions and general public frustration. Would be difficult to believe they didn't have some idea of the risks, how their reach into others lives manipulated agency.
Ground truth is apples:oranges but parallels to looting riches then fleeing Germany are hard to unsee.
Um, I guess this might useful to some number of readers, but I don't think it's universal and I don't think it's a secret—more like its one of a few dozen pithy focus hacks that regularly make their way through the blogosphere and social media for those interested in "productivity".
To try my hand at reductive advice, I would say this: know your strengths and what work you do has the most value. The structure exists to serve the work and not the other way around. Habits and processes can serve the work, but can quickly become a form of procrastination for certain types of personalities. Reading about productivity on the internet will not generally make you more productive. Only through honest self-reflection can you actually improve your personal productivity and impact.
True enough, though I think Tailwind suffered something of a black swan event of having lifetime pricing plus AI coding assistants hitting an inflection point that immediately and thoroughly decimated the value prop of their core monetized product.
Putting on a PM hat is something I've been doing regularly in my engineering career over the last quarter century. Even as a junior (still in college!) at my first job I was thinking about product, in no small part because there were no PMs in sight. As I grew through multiple startups and eventually bigger brand name tech companies, I realized that understanding how the details work combined with some sense of what users actually want and how they behave is a super power. With AI this skillset has never been more relevant.
I agree your assessment about the value of good PMs. The issue, in my experience, is that only about 20% (at most) are actually good. 60% are fine and can be successful with the right Design and Engingeering partners. And 20% should just be replaced by AI now so we can put the proper guardrails around their opinions and not be misled by their charisma or whatever other human traits enabled them to get hired into a job they are utterly unqualified for.
Sure, but long term business success aside, I’m sure most of the folks working at this company would die for a fraction of the adoption curve docker had.
Architects and engineers are not construction workers. AI can build the thing but it needs to be told exactly what to build by someone who knows how software works.
I’ve spent enough time working with cross-functional stakeholders to know that the vast majority of PM (whether of the product, program, or project variety), will not be capable of running AI towards any meaningful software development goal. At best they can build impressive prototypes and demos, at worst they will corrupt data in a company-destroying level of failure.
Basically you feed it a massive volume of application code. It turns out there is a lot of commonality and latent repetition that can be teased out by LLMs, so you can get quite far with that, though it will fall down when you get into more novel terrain.
> AI can build the thing but it needs to be told exactly what to build by someone who knows how software works.
If AI was following my instructions instead of ignoring them, and after complaining telling me it is sorry, and returns some other implementation which also fails to follow my instructions ... :-(
Don't be stupid, if an AI can figure out how to arrange code, it can also figure out how to pick the right architecture choices.
Right now millions of developers are providing tons of architecture questions and answers. That's all going to be used as training data for the next model coming out in 6 months time.
This is a moat on our jobs as deep as a puddle.
If you believe LLMs will be able to do complex coding tasks, you must also concede they will be able to make the relatively simpler architecture choices easily simply by asking the right questions. Something they're already starting to be able to do.
It's not a massive jump to go from, 'add a button above the table to the right that when clicked downloads and excel file', to 'The client's asking to dowbload an excel file".
If you believe the LLMs will graduate from junior level coding to senior in the next year, which they're clearly not capable of doing yet despite all the hype, there is no moat of going from coder to BA to PM.
I don't feel threatened because no matter how tools, platforms and languages improved, no matter how much faster I could produce and distribute working applications, there has never been a shortage of higher level problems to solve.
Now if the only thing I was doing was writing code to a specification written by someone else, then I would be scared, but in my quarter century career that has never been the case. Even at my first job as a junior web developer before graduating college, there was always a conversation with stakeholders and I always had input on what was being built. I get that not every programmer had that experience, but to me that's always been the majority of the value that software developers bring, the code itself is just an implementation detail.
I can't say that I won't miss hand-crafting all the code, there certainly was something meditative about it, but I'm sure some of the original ENIAC programmers felt the same way about plugging in cables to make circuits. The world of tech moves fast, and nostalgia doesn't pay the bills.
> there has never been a shortage of higher level problems to solve.
True, but whether all those problems are SEEN worth chasing business wise is another matter. Short term is what matters most for individuals currently in the field, and short term is less devs needed which leads to drop in salaries and higher competition. You will have a job but if you explore the job market you will find it much harder to get a job you want at the salary you want without facing huge competition. At the same time, your current employer might be less likely to give you salary raises because they know you bargaining power has decreased due to the job market conditions.
Maybe in 40 years time, new problems will change the job market dynamics but you will likely be near retirement by then
When it comes to software subscriptions, the bar is just that much higher. Not only do you have to pass the threshold for someone to even adopt another app/website/brand, but now you have to provide enough utility to pay for it. Claude spitting out code for a good-enough clone of an app doesn't come anywhere near the threshold. An agent that can write the code, buy a domain, provision and maintain the database, and submit the app to the app store gets closer, but now it's not looking so cheap anymore, moreso in terms of your time commitment as defacto product manager than actual tokens and hosting costs.
The actual disruption of SaaS apps will come from agents that are capable of solving problems autonomously in a different way such that you don't even need the SaaS. I'm sure we'll get there in time, but not without a lot of data integrity and security issues, and rogue agent fuckups along the way.
reply