[fnovd]

I'm sure people said the same thing about compilers. And then interpreters. Even today people complain about interpreted languages being too slow and not requiring people to understand "enough" of what's actually happening.

Turns out that really doesn't matter. I think your argument is incredibly weak; the fact that some people don't use these tools effectively doesn't mean that nobody can. Whoever figures this stuff out is going to win, that's just how it works.

That is to say, there will always be a niche for people who refuse to move up the chain of abstraction: they're actually incredibly necessary. However, as low-level foundations improve, the possibilities enabled higher up the chain grow at an exponentially-higher rate, and so that's where most of the work is needed. Career-wise it might be better to avoid AI if that's what you want to do, but as a business I can't see a dogmatic stance against these tools being anything but an own goal.

[gavinhoward]

> Turns out that really doesn't matter.

Except that it does!

For every level of abstraction, you lose something, and abstractions are leaky.

The lower levels of abstraction make you lose the least, and they are also the least leaky. The higher you go, the more you lose, and the more leaky.

What I'm claiming is that these "AI" tools have definitely reached the point where the losses and the leaks are too large to justify. And I'm betting my career on that.

[fnovd]

We all rely on abstractions over layers we don't deal with directly, that's just a fact. You're not running a home-grown OS on custom-built hardware made from materials you mined out of the ground yourself. AI is just another layer. Not everyone operates on the highest, newest layer, and that's absolutely fine. You can carve your niche anywhere you like. Telling yourself that the layer above you isn't feasible isn't going to do you any favors but it does generate buzz on social media which seems like it's the goal here.

You're not betting anything because the cost for you to change your mind and start working with AI tools is exactly 0. This rhetoric is just marketing. I'm sure you'll find the customers that are right for you, but you can at least admit that this kind of talk is putting the aesthetic preference of what you want work to look like above what's actually the most effective. Again, I'm sure you'll find customers who share those aesthetic preferences, but to pretend like it's actually an engineering concern is marketing gone too far.

[gavinhoward]

> We all rely on abstractions over layers we don't deal with directly, that's just a fact.

Did I ever deny that? Sure, some of those layers are worth it. That doesn't address my assertion that these "AI" tools are not.

> Telling yourself that the layer above you isn't feasible isn't going to do you any favors but it does generate buzz on social media which seems like it's the goal here.

You're halfway there.

> You're not betting anything because the cost for you to change your mind and start working with AI tools is exactly 0.

And here is where you contradict yourself.

If I'm getting loud about this bet, and making customers because of this bet, then it will cost me a lot to start working with "AI" tools. My customers will have come to be because I don't, so if I start, I could easily lose all of them!

> This rhetoric is just marketing.

Yep! But that's what makes my best actually cost something. I'm doing this on purpose.

> I'm sure you'll find the customers that are right for you, but you can at least admit that this kind of talk is putting the aesthetic preference of what you want work to look like above what's actually the most effective.

No, I will not admit that because I believe very strongly that my software will be better, including engineering-wise, than my competitors who use these "AI" tools.