[potato3732842]

I think a lot of this viewpoint comes from the fact that the median software engineer doesn't really have a lot of exposure to mature, and often therefore regulated industries and how much make-work paper pushing and ass-covering paper pushing there is.

I have no idea what fraction of our economic productivity is wasted doing these sort of TPS reports but it's surely so massive that any software that lets us essentially develop more software on the fly to cut that back even slightly is highly valuable.

Previously only the most moneyed interests and valuable endeavors could justify such software, like for example banks flagging sus transactions. Current AI is precariously close to being able to provide this sort of "dumb first pass set of eyes" look at bulk data cheaply to lesser use cases for which "normal" software is not economically viable.

[bryanlarsen]

AI will not reduce the amount of time wasted on paperwork. It'll massively increase the amount generated and consumed.

[_DeadFred_]

The problem is that those same workers have like 5% key stuff they do, based on knowledge and depth they probably wouldn't have without all the surrounding 'TPS' style bs. Definitely not knowledge you can take from 10 seperated workers with their 5% and somehow get 1 worker working on that stuff 50% of the time.

Boring ass code reviews come in super handy because of the better familiarity, getting exposure to the code slowly, exposures to the 'whys' as they are implemented not trying to figure out later. The same with buyers overlooking boring paperwork, team leads, productions planners. Automating all that is going to create worse outcomes.

In a sane world if we could take the fluff away we would have those people only working 5% of the time for the same pay, but we live in a capitalist system where that can't be allowed, we need 100% utilization.

[potato3732842]

> based on knowledge and depth they probably wouldn't have without all the surrounding 'TPS' style bs.

>Boring ass code reviews come in super handy because of the better familiarity, getting exposure to the code slowly, exposures to the 'whys' as they are implemented not trying to figure out later.

But to what extent is this truly necessary vs a post-hoc justification? Workers are pushed to work right to the limit of "how little can you know about the thing without causing bad results" all the time anyway.

>In a sane world if we could take the fluff away we would have those people only working 5% of the time for the same pay, but we live in a capitalist system where that can't be allowed, we need 100% utilization.

<laughs in Soviet bureaucracy>.

The catholic church was making fake work for itself for about 500yr before it caused big problems for them. It's not the capitalism that's the problem. It's the concentration of power/influence/wealth/resources that seems top breed these systems.