andrekandre

well, they gotta get those kids hooked on ai while they're young you know

  > Those individual subscription plans you get as a consumer are not what their big enterprise customers are using.

maybe, maybe not.

i am sure there are companies that push individual employees to get the cheaper individual subscriptions

  > there's no numbers to steer you. you need an opinionated director, auteur, not an excel monkey.

from what little i know, that sounds a lot like hollywood/movies as well...

  > praised by consumers to hear their feedback and steer the company in new directions

this time could be different, but just to note thats also what they said about the previous one as well (right after the other f*ckup with xbox one)

   > You can become CTO with this lack of business fundamentals, and a basic misunderstanding of systems engineering?

from first-hand experience? yes.

(in fact it may be a requisite ...)

the root problem isn't the code though; its the business and how its run that affects it, llms will just make it amplified imo

  > They are making spam games.

its why we need all those new data centers; to enable more of this and grow the gdp /s

  > i dont know how else to understand whats going on here.

cynically, tech (or maybe even capitalism itself) feels like its slowly degrading into nothing but vibes and scams to get that quick buck and/or exit

why talk to the customer when a chatbot can do it for you? your obviously not thinking ai-native... /s

i would second this. at $company they are jumping head-first into this and its not going well at all...

  > work tracking styles (agile, KPIs, etc)

the best de-motivators ever invented for anyone with drive and ambition to make anything great

  > a game they purchased on the App Store no longer working a year later, was also the last time many of them

(raises hand)

  > Apple couldn't care less about backwards compatibility.

its also the exact opposite of what an os is supposed to do: provide a base and abstraction for applications/programs to run stably; if apps breaks all the time whats the point?

  > Employers are reducing AI spending, not increasing it.

this.

n=1 but at $company we are already told to stop tokenmaxing and find cost savings for ai to the point of degrading user facing features (no loading llm generated content by default etc)

from here it looks like prices have to come down or demand will stall...

its limited on purpose though; its much easier to get people into purchase funnels that way (see how much more money is generated for apple per user in ios/ipad vs macos)

ipad works great in those scenarios because its more "kiosk" than "computer"

but for work where you actually need to create things and do things that don't fit the mold (custom software dev, use multiple apps at the same time for creative work etc etc) a classic computer like a mac or windows/linux is far superior

i'm tempted to say "all politics is downstream from economics", but really economics an politics is quite intertwined; its not surprise things are spiraling...

customers don't like big changes to workflows they get used to; adding a new feature or a new button or menu item isn't a big deal but rearranging things so often start to feel random and shows little respect for the customer (or signs of any cohesive product design)

  > those people don't care about their customers

if it was any other industry like medicine, food, or construction etc, could they get away with just shipping products where they have no idea whats in it?

where things like "it tastes good to me" or "cement didn't crumble when i hit it with a hammer" is good enough to ship we'd be inundated with lawsuits and customer claims... its a total joke where the software industry is headed

thank you for replying, i assume that much, but still 30,000...

yes, i know that, but what on earth requires 30,000 commits a day was my question; it just sounds like tons of useless code churn

that cant be just for claude code (which is a buggy mess ime) so what else are they working on that requires such churn?

read in captain kirks voice: what does a toaster need which an llm?

if they go bankrupt, someone will buy their assets or end up in sale to someone anyways, and if they couldn't make enough money to continue operations maybe its not actually worth "hundreds of millions or billions"?

bankruptcy also gives companies a chance to redo things and get stuff in order to pay the debtors; it doesn't always end in liquidation.

in any case, its better longterm to incentivize survival of the fittest through competition than through golden exit as it is now...

relatedly, TIL both anthropic and openai are public benefit corporations...

https://finance.yahoo.com/technology/ai/articles/explainer-p...

  > they even prefer knowing who to bribe to get exactly what they want

look its just a standard transaction fee set to market rates (if you are a ferenghi)

yes, if what we are doing capitalism anyways.

if they aren't successful they should go under, financially viable organizations should be rewarded with survival; there should be more incentive to build successful sustainable businesses and more competition to drive down costs and raise quality for customers than the quick exit we see a lot of the time

  > If you rent an apartment in China, it will come with furniture, because how else are you supposed to live in it?

+1 this. not in china, but same for me when i was a student; it was a godsend

  > the DMCA abolishes personal property so long as it contains electronics

i think this is a good distinction: electronic _personal property_ is basically abolished while _private property_ (aka means of production) is strengthened and protected.

it really goes to show the balance of influence where law is used basically say 'corporations > people' (and this isn't the first time), which begs the question do we even live in a 'democracy' if thats the norm?

same here, i call it aids (ai delusion sickness) and some companies i've seen have it bad

that is definitely true, calmly saying something completely outrageous while chastising the person passionately pointing it out... and the over-the-top behavior of some public personalities make it so easy to look sane while saying insane things because the optics are so contrasting.