People who talk about the masses are at the same time completely distanced from them but also completely tuned in to their mass psyche, or so they claim.
Most reasoning outside of philosophy departments is motivated and it is fine as long as it is either reflected on or the audience knows where they are coming from. This is just having skin in the game. You know, needing a job to survive, which is much more immediate than the motivation of society disruptors who either get to become fantastically rich or else move on to some other executive role.
I would also have wished for some substantiation for how this and that were a lie.
As it stands though it’s an argument against multi-level marketing. And it really doesn’t hold up that your everyman will be able to make money off of vibe coded apps. Maybe build their own very personal software gadget? Yeah, but there’s no money in that.
The Reasoned Case Against AI Disruptors does not need to be covered in such a piece.
Thank you for a thoughtful reply. To my reading you demonstrate that you listened, even though I didn’t give you much to work with considering my curt[1] comments, and these resources look helpful.
But I don’t understand the problem with this phrase. Maybe it’s an ESL (second lang.) issue, because I have only read one author that I recall that has used this phrase (poverty of stimulus?). But to my mind it isn’t even hyperbole. It’s just an expression saying “I am on my guard now”. Which means that you are skeptical, maybe even cynical. Yes, the immediate interpretation is that someone is reaching for their holster—not to shoot but to anticipate an ambush. But even that is just, you know, colorful in this context. In this context I am intending to express that I am skeptical. Not that someone is trying to fool me. But I am on guard against just taking someone’s experiences at face value; that their lifeworld is such-and-such is not even under debate, that is fine and no one is doubting that. What is under doubt in this context is what the proverbial room looked like when only one out of five people reported on it. Does that make sense?
> In the other hand maybe all these prices drive folks to program like we used to, conscious of the hardware limitations, without extra slots to rescue from bad programming.
I don’t understand why this comes up on all of these topics.
Dire need will compel a naked woman to learn to weave her own clothes, but there is no weaving machine for just making more efficient software. (American) Software developers are expensive, now I guess compute will either be expensive, more centralized, or have much more demand from competing interests (vibe coders who are implementing their own bespoke software or abandonware-for-one), and compute-for-code (GenAI) is a whole emergent engineering problem.
Then we hunker down and listen to or read a piece by Muratori, I guess, just practice some of those principles? But what seems to keep happening is that we get stuck by constraints that go beyond just writing more efficient code as a solo contributor on a solo project. That you can predict the efficiency of the code by the application domain suggests that there is a whole big system (of people and processes) above our heads that is not simple for any person or group of people to untangle.
> On top of that, there are also instruments that help the voters track whether politicians are engaging in corrupt lobbyism like voting records + donation / campaign contribution records, though few countries do that to a degree that it forms a cohesive anti-corruption framework. None of those measures exist for individual voters.
Corruption by definition is intentional, compare getting hoodwinked by "misinformation". Curious what "measures [] for individual voters" even means with regards to voters. A voter cannot be corrupt since they only represent themselves.
There’s interestingly all this hoopla and indirection, tracking corruption and misaligned priorities, even now adding the burden to the feeble voter mind to not only stay clear of misinformation campaigns but to watch out for corruption in their own representatives. This seems ripe for simplification.
Flintstone Engineering is applying Space Age synthetic intelligence (in a metaphorical sense) technology with code generation. Babysitting, version controlling, etc. generated code should be a thing of the past. But that is what GenAI is.
At the very least apply it at a higher level: specification, proofs, anything but generating Rust/Java/C and then letting yourself or an agent babysit it.
> A few days back I wrote a piece called “AI enthusiasts are in a race against time, AI skeptics are in a race against entropy.”
Guess who the author is.
> > The enthusiasts are not wrong. We are starting to see real, non-imaginary, discontinuous leaps in capabilities from teams that lean in hard to working with AI. And this does not feel like a normal technology cycle where you can wait for the dust to settle; teams that sit this out while competitors are hustling could be out of business before the dust settles. That’s a real, existential threat.
It’s not imaginary. It’s real. This time it’s different. And on a higher level, the FOMO is real. It’s not imaginary. It’s even existential.
Why do they all write the same as well? It’s so emphatic.
> The tech is cool, but as a thinking, feeling, breathing human who cares about other people, it can be hard to get excited about anything that so many people are this upset about. It’s also hard to get excited about something when so many of the loudest voices are out there talking gleefully about putting everyone permanently out of work, and so many artists and writers and people from developing nations are talking openly about the impact on them.
> Hold your desire to jump in and berate me here, I beg you. Like I said, I will deal with the ethics and morality of using AI in my very next post. Be honest, your attention span is no more up for reading a 10,000-word essay than mine is up for writing one. (Can we blame AI for that too?)
More Inevitability Soothsaying. All our feelings are crashing with Existentinal Threat Reality.
That more democracy is more attackable is not a coherent position. More democracy means more people power. But people being powerless to resist misinformation campaigns means that they do not have power. Which means that it is not really democracy. This is the same as saying that democracy is being undermined by wealth inequality. If money can buy political power and money is unevenly distributed then it’s not a democracy.
If one was actually interested in actual democracy one would fix that misinformation asymmetry.
If only we all could rise to the level of not doing stupid things on company property (praise), or company time (praise), then we would want for no privacy for there was never any to be taken in the first place.
Okay, this is America so fair enough. We can’t reasonably generalize in this context.
Jesus Christ. Here is how AI relates to me—ooh, with suspense-driving one-sentence paragraphs and reflective commandments. Come on, in Q2 2026 this is still a thing?
The self-involved industry is in shambles.
> What’s actually going on?
Need the meander headlines. I told you what is going on. Now. Let me interpret what I just wrote for you.
It would be just boring if self-help books were down because people believe less in astrology and affirmations or something. Couldn’t write about the Zeitgeist that way.
---
I’m not just a cynic. I lived a former life as well. And self-help is something ranging from entertainment to fantasy to small chance of personal transformation. And for books, it’s a cheap hobby compared to one-on-one pscyhology. So would it make sense to replace that with a language soup? Not really. The idiosyncracy is the whole point, jesus.
People might get taken in by it. That doesn’t mean that it will work in the long run.