The implicit assumption is that these AI-company jobs were recently created and indicate the start of a trend.
Chalmers is stating that there's more demand for philosophers with the right sort of training to work at AI companies (whatever that is) than there are philosophers with that training. (I don't really believe this, but that's what he says.)
He's making this claim for two reasons: (1) to respond to the argument (not directly stated in the article, but quite commonly understood to be sound in the profession field) that it's unwise to get a PhD in philosophy because there are not enough jobs and (2) to suggest that if you do want to get a PhD in philosophy and use it professionally, you'd be wise to study with Chalmers at NYU in order to get placed into these tech-industry jobs.
I came up an academic philosopher, before I switched careers. When you're surrounded by academic philosophers, you become very used to argument as a default form of interaction. People expect that they'll be asked to give reasons for their assertions, and that those reasons will be scrutinized and challenged.
And it's great! You can learn a ton from having these arguments with smart, engaged interlocutors. It's not that ego doesn't come into it at all. Often, the "loser" of the argument -- and there isn't always one! -- won't admit they're wrong, and at some point will just bow out and live to fight another day. But the point is that everyone agrees they need reasons for their beliefs, and rebuttals to strong objections, and if they lack those they need to go find them. So the arguments serve to help you find those gaps. People argue because they want to be right, but being right is hard. So you work at it. You aren't just trying to assert dominance, you're trying to prove -- to yourself, first and foremost -- that you have the right beliefs! And if you can't, you might even change your mind.
Leaving that world was eye-opening, because I still expected people to feel a powerful need to justify their beliefs. But most people don't, and they take the mere act of asking for justification to be a personal attack. This cost me relationships with people until I really learned the lesson.
Given how often it's been mentioned here, it's likely that this is an urban legend that people are pretending to have first-hand knowledge of for karma. In a trade that's supposed to be led by people trained in sciences, no less!
(A more charitable interpretation would be that aforementioned CTO was making a joke that didn't land.)
Funny, I'm just doing my normal coding workflow with Claude Code, and after every change that compiles it keeps suggesting that we're at a good stopping point, and should pick up again tomorrow.
It's done this before, but usually doesn't. I bet they're giving it some kind of throttling signal due to high load from today's announcement.
Hate to be the one to drag AI into every conversation, but I recently switched to arch linux and it's been delightful -- largely because of Claude. I have leaned on Claude heavily to diagnose and resolve issues that I probably could have theoretically solved on my own, but which also probably would have made me switch back if I didn't have help to resolve them quickly.
(Yes, I know arch linux is not what you want if you're a "I just want something that works" person switching from windows. That's not me, I'm more of a "I want all the control and responsibility guy". I just don't have four hours to spend figuring out how to get hardware video acceleration working in vlc by trial and error the first time I try to play a video. Twenty minutes though? OK. I'll even learn something in the process.)
Indeed you can! I don't use IntelliJ at work for [reasons], and LSP doesn't support a change signature action with defaults for new params (afaik). But it really seems like something any decent coding agent ought be able to one shot for precisely this reason, right?
In the case I described no code changes have been made yet. It's still just planning what to do.
It's true that I could accept the plan and hope that it will realize that it can't commit a change that doesn't compile on its own, later. I might even have some reason to think that's true, such as your stop hook, or a "memory" it wrote down before after I told it to never ever commit a change that doesn't compile, in all caps. But that doesn't change the badness of the plan.
Which is especially notable because I already told it the correct plan! It just tried to change the plan out of "laziness", I guess? Or maybe if you're enough of an LLM booster you can just say I didn't use exactly the right natural language specification of my original plan.
Indeed! You would think it would have some kind of sense that a commit that obviously won't compile is bad!
You would think.
It would be one thing if it was like, ok, we'll temporarily commit the signature change, do some related thing, then come back and fix all the call sites, and squash before merging. But that is not the proposal. The plan it proposes is literally to make what it has identified as the minimal change, which obviously breaks the build, and call it a day, presuming that either I or a future session will do the obvious next step it is trying to beg off.
The version of this I encounter literally every day is:
I ask my coding agent to do some tedious, extremely well-specified refactor, such as (to give a concrete real life example) changing a commonly used fn to take a locale parameter, because it will soon need to be locale-aware. I am very clear — we are not actually changing any behavior, just the fn signature. In fact, at all call sites, I want it to specify a default locale, because we haven't actually localized anything yet!
Said agent, I know, will spend many minutes (and tokens) finding all the call sites, and then I will still have to either confirm each update or yolo and trust the compiler and tests and the agents ability to deal with their failures. I am ok with this, because while I could do this just fine with vim and my lsp, the LLM agent can do it in about the same amount of time, maybe even a little less, and it's a very straightforward change that's tedious for me, and I'd rather think about or do anything else and just check in occasionally to approve a change.
But my f'ing agent is all like, "I found 67 call sites. This is a pretty substantial change. Maybe we should just commit the signature change with a TODO to update all the call sites, what do you think?"
And in that moment I guess I know why some people say having an LLM is like having a junior engineer who never learns anything.
I had a fun experience with my ISP where their chat bot couldn't help me (of course it couldn't, I don't call for "did you try turning it off and on again" problems), so it escalated me to a human agent. Said human agent was very obviously copy-pasting LLM output. I could tell because (1) the responses were nearly identical to what Claude already told me when I asked it before calling and (2) every once in a while I would get an uncharacteristically brief reply, without capitalization or punctuation, in Indian English.
I haven't a had a good experience since AT&T bought my previous ISP and forced me to switch to a different subsidiary.
I was a MS-DOS 2.0 user as a child. I have always preferred windows to OSX. I used WSL for years at companies where every other engineer had a MacBook.
Last weekend I finally started dual-booting Arch Linux as a trial. Yesterday I deleted my windows partition.
> Since the formulas did depend on each other the order of (re)calculation made a difference. The first idea was to follow the dependency chains but this would have involved keeping pointers and that would take up memory. We realized that normal spreadsheets were simple and could be calculated in either row or column order and errors would usually become obvious right away. Later spreadsheets touted "natural order" as a major feature but for the Apple ][ I think we made the right tradeoff.
It would seem that the creators of VisiCalc regarded this is a choice that made sense in the context of the limitations of the Apple ][, but agree that a dependency graph would have been better.
Edit: It's also interesting that the tradeoff here is put in terms of correctness, not performance as in the posted article. And that makes sense: Consider a spreadsheet with =B2 in A1 and =B1 in B2. Now change the value of B1. If you recalc the sheet in row-column OR column-row order, B2 will update to match B1, but A1 will now be incorrect! You need to evaluate twice to fully resolve the dependency graph.
Alright you badgered me into reading the original and the linked post does not misinterpret it.
> Previously, we could @cursor and ask it to modify the code and content, but now we introduced a new CMS abstraction in between. Everything became a bit more clunky. We went back to clicking through UI menus versus asking agents to do things for us.
> With AI and coding agents, the cost of an abstraction has never been higher. I asked them: do we really need a CMS? Will people care if they have to use a chatbot to modify content versus a GUI?
> For many teams, the cost of the CMS abstraction is worth it. They need to have a portal where writers or marketers can log in, click a few buttons, and change the content.
> More importantly, the migration has already been worth it. The first day after, I merged a fix to the website from a cloud agent on my phone.
> The cost of abstractions with AI is very high.
The whole argument is about how it's easier to use agents to modify the website without a CMS in the way.
This is an AI company saying "if you buy our product you don't need a CMS" and a CMS company saying "nuh-uh, you still need a CMS".
The most interesting thing here is that the CMS company feels the need to respond to the AI company's argument publicly.
> Lee's argument for moving to code is that agents can work with code.
So do you think this is a misrepresentation of Lee's argument? Again, I couldn't be bothered to read the original, so I'm relying on this interpretation of the original.
It seems like the argument is roughly: we used to use CMS because we had comms & marketing people who don't know git. But we plan to replace them all with ChatGPT or Claude, which does. So now we don't need CMS.
(I didn't click through to the original post because it seems like another boring "will AI replace humans?" debate, but that's the sense I got from the repeated mention of "agents".)