"Quality is the absence of problems" is an example of the reification fallacy, because a problem is not a fixed thing. A problem is only a problem because someone decides it is so.
This is why a better definition is "quality is value to some person who matters." This definition instantly places you at the crux of the matter, which is not about a state of the world or of your product in the world, but rather about WHO matters and how they FEEL about your product.
This is inkblot test. Some will read it and see fundamental irrationality. Others will read it and say “it could have worked out if a couple of things had gone their way.”
The story could be change with just a few sentences in the middle that would turn it into the founding myth of how Globoven took 100% of the market for energy efficient portable emergency ovens for NATO military use.
It's not a good look to start a comment with any variation of "you're being rude," either. So I guess both of us are prickly?
You misunderstood my blog post in an odd way that's hard for me to account for unless you just didn't read carefully. Hence, my annoyed quip.
I wrote in my policy, referred to in the post, that I never have AI draft anything for me. But I was quite explicit that I may use AI to aid my research in various ways-- just as I use Google search and other tools. I might create a monte carlo simulation to test my understanding of probability before making a bold pronouncement about statistical matter, too.
So, what I mean by adjacent is "next to" but not "on top of" or "inside." That's what most people mean by adjacent. I don't have AI draft any text for me. I type it all myself. I choose the words and sentence forms and rhetorical structure and overall strategy myself. That's how you know it's me and not some AI masquerading as me.
If you are serious, then AI has already begin to rot your brain.
My post was much more than saying “don’t use AI.”
I use AI. I even use AI adjacent to my writing. But with me, you always know that my written words are directly from me. They sound like me. I pretty much write how I talk, albeit more grammatically.
My post was about why you are taking a big risk with your reputation/brand if you let AI draft your written communication on your behalf.
I don’t use autocomplete, either. But if I did that would not be hypocritical. Autocomplete does not operate on the level of key ideas.
The “humans are just as bad” argument holds no water. Humans have many infirmities, but you can form relationships of trust with people who earn trust and deserve it. You can hold people accountable, personally and publicly. With the exception of rare criminals and the severely mentally ill, you understand people and you can work with them.
Anyway, if you hire someone to pretend to be you, that’s fraud. That’s being a scammer. Don’t do that. For the same reason, don’t let AI write in your name.
Or if you do, remember that I warned you how your reputation would collapse and people would stop taking your work seriously.
It’s not that you are a liar, it’s that I don’t know who you are. I don’t know what you are. Not just me, but also many other people will automatically discount whatever you say when they suspect they are talking to something not-you that bears your name.
Maybe it’s not your goal to be seriously? But if it is…
One hardly needs an excuse to talk about class warfare and the evils of capitalism, since their deleterious effects are all around you, if you can pause your xBox game or Netflix special for a few minutes and look at how the world works.
I run a business and have occasionally benefited from the fact that people want work so badly that I can get their skilled labor at an absurdly low price.
AI is having a devastating effect on the psychology of the industry, regardless of the fact that it largely sucks. The author of this piece makes an excellent point.
Good work takes skill. The tech industry long ago realized that good work is not required to stay in business. The industry is overflowing with mediocre workers who feel little pressure to master their craft.
It’s strange to find the word “malicious” used to describe a defensive move against a bullying entity. If a kid punches a bullies who is taking his lunch money, that’s heroic.
AI agents and their peddlers and operators are scofflaws. I’m glad someone is putting down a spike strip for them.
I am remembering the same Internet. I got into lots of flame wars on comp.software-eng and before that on Compuserve and various FIDO boards.
It was never a very placid or friendly place. There was more tolerance for vigorous debate than there is now. The debate didn’t change many minds, I suppose.
Maybe it’s condescending, but it’s valid. I have made sacrifices throughout my career to maintain maximum integrity, and the least I can do is be proud of it, since I don’t have riches or possessions to be proud of.
Yeah I rage quit my job 27 years ago and have been a struggling honest consultant ever since. Clients who want actual solutions to their problems come to me. Does that sound arrogant? Well I also have no savings and don’t own a house.
I don’t regret most of my choices, but I am aware that if somebody paid me enough money I would walk away from my principles. It would have to be a LOT of money.
I’m developing a class for non-technical people on the responsible use of AI.
Continuing development of online training for software testers, with a heavy emphasis on AI, since that’s where the demand is.
During a livestreamed demo yesterday, I ran into a ridiculous bug in Copilot for Excel. After all these years Microsoft still can’t manage the basics of reliability and still deny that they need good testers.
I think you are right. ALSO, this is not happening and will not even start happening because no mechanism exists to make the kinds of transformations necessary for it to happen.
I think I know how patricians felt as the Roman Empire was falling and all the systems of long distance trade collapsed. You can see it happening but you can’t change anything.