[davidclark]

>The difference this time is pace: you could delay adopting “the cloud” for a couple of years and survive. With AI you might get a few months.

It is weird that the author seems to understand that the pro-AI claims made by AI companies about the product’s necessity are not falsifiable, but then backtracks with “woah woah woah but don’t think I’m anti-AI.”

How is the assertion above any more rigorous than the productivity claims the author is criticizing throughout the rest of the article? That you won’t “survive” if you don’t adopt AI within a few months?

It is not true when the AI CEO says it, and it is not true when the person calling BS on the AI CEO… for some reason also says it…

[giancarlostoro]

When the AI CEO says it, its because stock go brrr. I never believed that AI CEOs because they're making unverifiable claims that they never backed up, claiming you're firing people because of AI is so open for interpretation, and it shifts blame from you to the AI, reality is we should not blame AI for something a CEO did, you could have re-trained employees for AI, but you didn't why not? Maybe because it's not about AI is it?

[jimbokun]

He is talking about the cultural considerations of being hire-able. Not about productivity.

[davenz]

Hey, author here. Fair criticism (and thanks for reading!). What I was reaching for with the "few months" claim wasn't about company-survival, rather individual practice. I didn't make that clear enough (I actually did write this, not "AI-slop it" as some elsewhere have suggested, so maybe I got "human-sloppy" by the end).

You're right that I don't back up the "woah woah woah" bit with any evidence, but I do stand by the sentiment that I think people should use AI; experiment, find the ways it can help you (I've found that there's a huge spectrum even among similar engineers, in terms of how they get value from it). Trying the tools properly costs you almost nothing, and "adopt deliberately, measure with the boring battle-tested stuff" is not the same position as "adopt or die".

[eikenberry]

> It is not true when the AI CEO says it, and it is not true when the person calling BS on the AI CEO… for some reason also says it…

People do take into account the motivations behind what someone says and to me the motivations here seem different enough to make some difference here. The AI CEO has an obvious motivation to lie, but the person calling BS doesn't have such a clear motive...