No it hasn’t, middle managers are the ones telling everyone below them to use AI as much as possible, even if it makes no sense and screws things up. AI is a middle manager’s dream.
Yes, this is what I meant. There hasn't been much news on it for some reason, but in Microsoft at least they're getting pushed out of their role, either to some more direct role, or out.
>The building of the software happens trivially now. You do not need a software engineer, sorry guys.
This part is quite "load-bearing".
I heard from someone who worked at Lovable that what most customers produce with that magical textbox is software that shouldn't go anywhere near production. Apparently the problem of thinking like an engineer is not solved by these AI tools. Most people who are not software engineers by trade are not capable of verifying what they produced, nor would they even consider needing to.
No offence, I think you might be a classic case of "senior who forgot how it feels to be junior", where after a lot work experience deva start taking their software engineering instincts for granted and forget that they are a skill that takes years to master. You can prompt an AI for a solution, you can even prompt it for ideas, but you cannot prompt it to think for you.
It's a markup language for documents. If you enable templating devs are then going to ask for more. Eventually it will end up turing complete. Such is the development arc of a lot of languages.
It's a repeated observation that keeps coming true. DSLs have a tendency to become turing complete over time.
- It happened to wikipedia's templating language
- It happened to PHP
- It happened to mod_rewrite
- It happened to server-side includes
- etc...
It just keeps happening.
In fact it's such a problem with infrastructure teams that use yaml/json configs that you see a lack of turing-completeness being advertised as a feature (see Dhall configuration language).
I don't disagree with "DSLs have a tendency to become turing complete over time", it's a well known fact.
But "we can't give something to users because otherwise they'll ask for other stuff" is not an argument. They're _already_ asking for stuff (templating) anyway. No one is suggesting that shutting users up is a reason to implement templating, it's the trade-offs of this feature that are debated. And if it gets implement then yes, users will certainly ask for more features, the trade-offs of which can be debated.
If you think that the line for HTML features is where we already are, you can present your arguments for why (tbh I'll probably agree). But "if you enable templating devs are then going to ask for more" isn't one.
The reality is that 90% of the features they ask for boils down to adding just a simple if statement, and as soon as a DSL has a practical if statement it becomes turing complete.
If the other 10% of features are implemented, then any further change makes the DSL turing complete.
It's not even really `if` by itself, conditionals are good enough. Templates with for loops that can check if an index is the first or last can implement if statements. Also templates that can nest other templates recursively with a max recursion depth can also implement if.
You have to go out of your way to avoid turing completeness if you want to avoid a complexity explosion.
It's almost a meta-slippery-slope fallacy, in that the specific slope is not specified; only the existence of the slope and its slipperiness is asserted.
The slope we've observed over the decades is PHP. Which went from "basic HTML templating language" to "dotnet but you write $ everywhere". PHP has grown so much in complexity and feature-set that Symphony and the likes are legitimately dotnet-type. They make Go backends look low-level and primitive.
Windows desktop native is WinUI 3 and Windows App SDK, for better or for worse. No amount of Rust and tokens will recreate everything you get out of the box with that stack. Native needs to feel native.
The last time Windows UI felt native was maybe Windows XP. Maaayyybe 7, if we are generous. It also has to do with sluggish or no feedback by UI widgets, due to the trend of flat everywhere.
Point wasn't about fixing the exact issues, the point was how it even got that bad. Of course the easiest route to comprehending the complaint by Bill is to immediately fix the specified issues, making Bill a simple QA instead of concerned leader.
I think accountability would involve trying to understand how it got that bad, and figuring out a new process for preventing it from happening again. Though I'm sure that never happened.
In my humble opinion, some of the blame has to land on Bill himself as he has the full power and agency to build a style of management in his company that would've prevented this from happening. Instead he just scolded a bunch of senior execs who usually find a way to just delegate some work to tuck away any visible issues and go on with their merry lives.
I don't think these companies have humanity's needs in mind when they're developing these models. Although the last part of your comment struck me as a bit comical, I genuinely believe that an AI can have way more empathy than a corporation. Afterall, a mimicry of empathy is probably better than no empathy.
It's a funny comparison. Comparing the empathy of some software to the empathy of a company. It's like saying my car was more empathetic than my school. How can those two objects even be compared is what i am wondering
We live in an odd time where 'software' (well neural networks) can be far more empathetic than summed product of a corporation.
Company empathy does exist, just look at how easy or hard it is to reach a company when you have a problem. How do they try to solve it for you? Is it a brick wall, for example Google when you have a problem. People quite often like dealing with small businesses because they can reach a singular human and have them as an interface to the problems they face now and in the future.
Agentic loops and the models underneath them can have a simulacra of empathy too. Not every model just blindly agrees with users, and some have a much better depth in picking up context clues that the user on the other end is having a hard time. Businesses just typically aren't running more expensive and fragile systems like that though.
Well, companies and AI are both entities that can make decisions and take actions that involve humans. Those might be empathetic or they might not. So of course you can compare their levels of empathy. I don't really understand why you think that you wouldn't be able to.
For example, health insurance providers are renowned for not being empathetic. Charities are the opposite. Sometimes companies even build it into their identity, e.g. Cards Against Humanity.
As for AI, I haven't seen a strong difference in empathy but it's definitely true that the big AI companies at least try to make their models moral and empathetic. Even if it mostly ends up just being annoying.
It varies, the researchers absolutely do have humanity’s needs in mind, it’s why they founded the companies and are doing work everyday. However the issue is that it’s got so much money involved that the heartless soulless billionaires are getting involved. I think the actual literal people doing the real work are doing it because AI could cure every cancer and every disease, make us a multi-planetary species, outlast humans by millions and millions of years, potentially create actual organic life and make direct upgrades to humans.
I think that AI has an insane level of upside, it’s just that the greedy dumbfuck billionaires are getting their greedy little grubby paws involved. If left to researchers I think the sky is the limit, but unfortunately thy need assets, so there isn’t a clean solution to that.
Ideally, we could somehow separate AI from funding from malicious entities like billionaires, but right now that doesn’t seem possible. Hopefully in the future researchers with genuinely good intentions can have far more direct control than dumbass greedy old fucks, but we’ll just have to see.
I think the future can be bright in theory but we’ll have to see, making insanely powerful open-source models is the direct way to get around the billionaires so I think that’s our only option. Make open-source ASI you can run on a consumer computer.
As someone coming from MacroFactor, estimating macros on food is the hardest part of dieting. So your app is great but it tackles the part of dieting that people aren't stuggling with and doesn't address the part that they do struggle with.
Most dieting apps are pushing for the AI photo and barcode scanning to make estimating easier and though far from perfect, it makes the whole experience at least somewhat doable.
We've had many people who have unsubscribed from MacroFactor after using our MacroCodex.
Not just this, we've also built MacroFactor Workout's rival Symbiote Workout app which is also completely free! it's now in Beta and under rapid developement.
For calorie tracking, you've established apps like Cronometer and MyFitnessPal or they can use our completely free AI calorie tracker CalorieCodex! which does what you want! barcode scan / photo to calorie and macro output etc...
>estimating macros on food is the hardest part of dieting. So your app is great but it tackles the part of dieting that people aren't stuggling with and doesn't address the part that they do struggle with.
I believe MacroCodex actually targets the part most people are likely to struggle with and this is why it is able to provide guaranteed results!
This app is not a calorie tracker, though it can pull calorie totals and weight from other apps using Health Connect on Android.
>Most dieting apps are pushing for the AI photo and barcode scanning to make estimating easier and though far from perfect, it makes the whole experience at least somewhat doable.
We also have an AI calorie tracker; it's CalorieCodex. It's in BETA and can do Barcode/Photo using BYOK AI.
Chest straps work with ECG, so they're hard to beat for heart rate tracking. That said, Apple watches are some of the best wrist wearables for heart rate tracking. Most other brands aren't as accurate and many don't come even close.
Check out the Quantified Scientist on YouTube, he does some interesting testing on health devices.
Not by much. A mile is 1000 paces, or 2000 steps [0]. 10000 steps is 5 miles, 10km is 6.2 miles.
Walking on flat, paved surfaces, I do about 1850 steps per mile of distance[1]. I have a pretty long inseam, so I'm not surprised that I'd be under 1000 paces. Given that roads weren't paved with concrete or asphalt until relatively recently, I'm not surprised that the Roman mile is a little shorter than our current one[2].
Speaking as someone who worked offshore for most of their career and is now a full time employee at MS.
Vendors are treated as vendors usually are. They are given the work that nobody wants (work that provides no career growth and usually is uninteresting), they get the least amount of attention and mentoring, they are expected onboard quickly with little help from the team, etc.
I have noticed that I'm more empathetic to vendors than people who have never been the offshore/contractor person.
reply