It's funny how, when the hype is strong enough, the burden of proof around the need for EVIDENCE suddenly shifts.
Normally, the burden of proof is on $NEWFANGLED_THING to prove it's better than $TRIED_AND_TESTED.
Software dark factories where no one looks at code are that unproven newfangled thing and all he's really saying is that, in his experience/assessment, those don't work, so he's trying to find other modes of human-ai-collaboration that might actually work that capitalize better on the things (humans) that weren't broke and didn't need fixing when gen-ai coding came along; and then getting the word out about that.
Under normal circumstances there would be absolutely no ground for any controversy around such a stance. Instead, he's having to contend with reactions like: "But $HYPED_UP_THING, and how great that is is all that anyone is talking about! Don't listen to him, he's just trying to sell you something (other than what everyone else is trying to sell). ...naysayer probably thinks he's smarter than everyone."
It's just he's qualified himself as an unreliable witness. This is not someone who deeply understands and thinks about what he does or what he advises.
The things that I know about, that he writes about, where I know he's got it a bit wrong.... I find myself questioning if he's right or not. Because he's a persuasive writer. But winning arguments doesn't make you right. This isn't a supported, balanced discussion it's a self aggrandising mismash of commonplace ideas and issues.
He's learned how to grab the mic, he believes he has the right to the mic, people are listening to him.. all three of these are wrong and until we call this out and put a stop to people like this shooting their mouths off damage is going to carry on being done.
It's funny how, when the hype is strong enough, the burden of proof around the need for EVIDENCE suddenly shifts.
Normally, the burden of proof is on $NEWFANGLED_THING to prove it's better than $TRIED_AND_TESTED.
Software dark factories where no one looks at code are that unproven newfangled thing and all he's really saying is that, in his experience/assessment, those don't work, so he's trying to find other modes of human-ai-collaboration that might actually work that capitalize better on the things (humans) that weren't broke and didn't need fixing when gen-ai coding came along; and then getting the word out about that.
Under normal circumstances there would be absolutely no ground for any controversy around such a stance. Instead, he's having to contend with reactions like: "But $HYPED_UP_THING, and how great that is is all that anyone is talking about! Don't listen to him, he's just trying to sell you something (other than what everyone else is trying to sell). ...naysayer probably thinks he's smarter than everyone."