[sublinear]

> only a fool would pretend he can do everything the same without it now

Unless you're working in a coding sweatshop, I don't see why you need AI to do what people have been doing for decades just fine without breaking a sweat.

What are you working on?

[SeanAnderson]

Your competition's behavior necessarily affects you unless your company has an unassailable moat.

If other companies are able to tolerate larger amounts of tech debt while shipping new features faster then you'll be out of a job at some point when your company loses market share.

It's fine if you disagree with the idea that AI lets established companies ship faster. I'm not here to argue that. But I think it's pretty easy to empathize with "why might one need to change their behavior due to this new technology?"

[sublinear]

> unless your company has an unassailable moat

Is not working in SV enough of a moat?

> If other companies are able to tolerate larger amounts of tech debt while shipping new features faster then you'll be out of a job at some point when your company loses market share.

I'm saying that B2B services are very common outside of SV and more focused on stability, compliance, long-term maintenance, and the operational knowhow that comes with all that rather than just shipping new features. It's not that there isn't some competition, but that the business is built on much more comprehensive partnerships than just being a software vendor. I can't believe I'm saying this, but "synergy" sometimes isn't just a meaningless buzzword.

When you try to jam "AI" into the mix, the disruption harms the business value. Many including myself would like to be enlightened if you think otherwise.

[SeanAnderson]

Well, I'm commenting from a place of bias, as I'm Head of AI at our company and am in charge of rolling out agentic coding throughout the engineering org. So, bear with me a bit.

We're B2B SaaS in the Ed Tech space. It's very sales-driven. There's only so many players in the space, customers come with a laundry list of things they've seen others do and expect you to have those features, too. There are basic expectations that need to be met, some of those are compliance, but, sadly, a lot of what actually drives sales is just... flashy shit that looks good to those signing the checks not those using the underlying software. We lost a sale recently because someone was upset we didn't have the ability to give digital stickers to children - seriously.

You're more than welcome to tell the customer they're wrong and not give them their stickers. Or you can ask Claude to build stickers for you in two days and keep up with the Joneses.

Don't get me wrong. Customers aren't retained long-term with flashy shit. People churn out because of poor UX, security fears, pricing hikes, etc. Those frustrations tend to build over years and pain has to get pretty high because it's effortful to shift software providers. But, for getting new customers, sales is driven by flashy features and, at least in our experience, we need to be able to build those as quickly as our competitors or we lose out.

[physPop]

Upton Sinclair: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

[Ferret7446]

Economics are economics. If your company is inefficient by not using AI, then it must make up for it and sacrifice some other economic advantage it has over its competitors to break even. If the loss of efficiency is low enough for your particular business, then perhaps you do not care and are content with sacrificing N% of your economic advantage over your competitors.

[potsandpans]

> Unless you're working in a coding sweatshop

You are obviously unaware of what the silicon valley companies are asking for and commiting to.

[applfanboysbgon]

The same shit they've always been asking for, judging by what OpenAI and Anthropic are pumping out surrounding their models: bloated, buggy Electron apps that consume gigabytes of memory to display fucking <1kb of text. We are not witnessing better software, even from the people who have unlimited capital and unlimited access to frontier models and are true believers in its potential to replace engineers.

[pixl97]

Better software means nearly nothing at the end of the day.

The software that gets used is the metric that really matters.

You can write 'perfect' software that runs at 100% efficient and never makes a mistake, but if no one ever downloads it and uses it, you've just engaged in a bout of intellectual masturbation.

And honestly I've seen the 'write better software' people complain for years as Microsoft just absolutely financially decimates them. And yea, Microsoft loves writing bloated electron crap. And "one of these days Alice, people are going to rise up and use less bloated software and Microsoft is going to die", lol, just fucking kidding, people will never do that.

[applfanboysbgon]

Bun and uv were better software than their alternatives and gained massive traction quickly, leading to them selling out for a big payday. Better software has to overcome a massive marketing advantage, ecosystem capture, and inertia, but people are absolutely interested in using things that aren't buggy bloated bullshit where they have a choice.

I don't really know why you brought Microsoft up. I don't know anyone who thinks writing better software can displace Windows. Windows has absolute ecosystem capture, notably on the hardware front -- you can't write a better OS even if you want to because hardware vendors simply won't work with you, and even if you did write a better OS you have to contend with not having 30 years of software developed for it. Computers are increasingly falling into the domain of professionals (with smartphones displacing casual consumer usage), who need Photoshop, Excel, and all of the rest of professional tools and would put up with an inferior OS out of necessity, because the tools are more important than the OS.

Even then, Windows is an excellent piece of software, technically. It is handicapped by explicit anti-consumer decisions shoving things users don't want into it, but the kernel is hands down better than Linux's kernel, and the userspace is superior on technical merits if not user-friendliness merits. Windows has been going downhill in more recent years, but the gap between it and Linux is still massive.

Really, I don't know how Microsoft is your go-to example, when they are actually a producer of excellent software. Excel, the modern .NET ecosystem, C#, and Typescript are top-tier, and VSCode is perhaps the only software I've used that justifies being an Electron application, because it actually exposes the capability to completely customise every aspect of it and extend it with sandboxed extensions. To the extent people have grievances with Microsoft, it is largely because of deliberate monopolistic practices rather than the technical quality of their software.

I guess you are conceding that LLMs can't write good software, but are suggesting that good software doesn't matter. I think it does matter very much. In cases of monopoly control, people will begrudgingly use bad software, but they won't be loyal and you will bleed users over time as the frustrations build. But I think most critically, in cases where you don't already have monopoly control, nobody will use your bad software. This is why we haven't seen any vibe coded applications really taking the world by storm despite all the LLM hype. OpenAI and Anthropic can make you use their bad software because it's the gate to a useful proprietary tool, which is their real attraction, but Random Startup #482942 cannot make you use their bad software. Creating good software doesn't guarantee that Random Startup #482942 will succeed, given other market factors, but creating bad software guarantees they won't succeed.