Hacker News Reader

Comment by ecommerceguy | Hacker News Reader

I'm seeing in offices, usage has gone down significantly. For alot of people, it takes more time to figure out how to get ai to do something vs just doing it.

View on HN

I'm pretty exhausted by the amount of prompting it takes to get Opus 5.5 to do some things the way I want it done. And I'm fighting against a complex system no human wrote. Claude also writes Jira tickets and voluminous comments that no human reasonably understands, so it's all become a huge clusterfuck. Nobody even runs the project locally so we can't even review the changes until they hit a dev server 30 or 40 minutes later. Been at this company for 8 years and this year has turned into a complete shitshow thanks to the CTO drinking the AI kool-aide. I'm looking for a new job.

I presume codebase is for something critical to your company. To give full keys to the company to unproven foreign entity and lose control of codebase for good... a fireable offense to say the least

Sounds like president material to me

It's way worse than that. They made us sign a document that outlines how we are limited in our use of AI (which was reasonable), but then we are told to ignore it and go full 'YOLO' with AI or else, to speed up our work. So we could get fired at any time because we are using AI against the rules we signed, that we were told to ignore by the boss. And I have no doubt they would fire another developer to pay for more tokens.

Sounds like just about time to start interviewing elsewhere, do it while you still have negotiating power of simply refusing the offer which is not good enough.

Thats hyper toxic and shows how clueless and bad at its work management is. Won't get better.

I have the impression that the gifted can leverage AI a lot more than normal people. My early views about AI were that it would democratize intelligence, but now my opinion is that it will be a huge catalyst for the gifted people, increasing social and economic differences.

From personal experience, what I've seen is the opposite. The less "gifted" attempt to lean on AI to close capability gaps, with results that are amusing at best, and disastrous at worst.

I think this is in line with GPs point, no?

The gifted use it and do better/greater/more, while the less "gifted" can't seem to get too much out of it, or things that are passing novelty at best.

(At least that's how I read it)

I think "proactivity" is the better word here.

Some people playfully embrace new ways of doing things and others need to be shown. AI is still too open-ended for some.

I think you're right about increasing social and economic differences, though. I remember reading that poverty erodes agency and self-advocacy over time. If the previous paradigm isn't working well for you, you aren't necessarily well-positioned to benefit from the new one. And maybe severely disadvantaged.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com