[sublinear]

I think the situation is even more severely ridiculous than that. Google is still good enough just like it was well over a decade ago.

Most people don't have workloads that demand agentic workflows to begin with, and if their employer is pushing for that it's probably a startup that underpays or a coding sweatshop full of nepotism that fires fast.

[fwipsy]

"People shouldn't need to use AI unless they're overworked, Google is good enough."

But why should I work harder than necessary to do the same job? Why wouldn't I want to use the best tools available?

[sublinear]

You're likely not doing the "same job". If you really want to take that stance, you can take it so easy that you're unemployed and your employer can vibecode their business into the ground.

The best tool available is your own mind. You should at least understand what you're being held accountable for.

We already went through all this shit the previous decade with copypasta and the decade before that with WYSIWYG and the decade before that...

[fwipsy]

I'm not taking that stance. It's possible to have a moderate position between "Don't use AI" and "let AI do everything." I am doing the same job, more or less, just a little faster/more efficiently.

Have you heard of comparative advantage? Even if the US is better than Nowhereville at making literally everything, it still makes sense for Nowhereville to make whatever it can make with the lowest opportunity cost.

I'm smarter than AI in my area of expertise, or in any area I have time to learn thoroughly. But I can't learn everything. AI is a better generalist than I am.

Or maybe you're right. Technology never improves productivity. We ought to go back to assembly language written on clay tablets, everything's been downhill since then.