774 karma · joined March 6, 2026
To shrug it off is just another way to avoid the confrontation, to make it seem not worth one's time. If the people destroying our future are imbeciles, what does this say about us?
It's probably a bit of both, IMO. I don't doubt that pressure and threats to survival can also make people snap out of ruts they have been in, and look for something beyond what they already know. But I still would say you can have inventions without war, but you cannot have them when there is nothing but war. And my argument would be that the extreme of that would be someone who gets screamed at and beaten from the moment they were born, and lives in constant state of war. They will not be able to find the rest and perspective to invent things, they may not even survive.
https://engineerscanada.ca/become-an-engineer/use-of-profess...
> Misuse of the title engineer
[..]
> Areas of concern
> There are several places where the use of engineer is often used improperly. They include:
> Software or data engineer: In most provinces*, unless someone is licensed with a provincial or territorial engineering regulator, they cannot use the title engineer, or any variation. This applies even if the title is assigned by the employer. Alternative titles can include:
> Data analyst, Data scientist, Software specialist, Software technician, Data technologist, Data manager, Data technical expert.
As for Missouri:
> [..] any person using the word "engineer", "engineers", or "engineering", alone or preceded by any word, or in combination with any words, may do so without being subject to disciplinary action by the board so long as such use is reflective of that person's profession or vocation and is clearly not indicating or implying that such person is holding himself or herself out as being a professional engineer or is willing or able to practice engineering as defined in this section
https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=327.181
So I say the title "software engineer", in the slop hallucination sense it's too often used, where the sources either don't exist or say the opposite when you look stuff up, carries no information, other that a person is dishonest, or got fooled into repeating something dishonest. They may or may not be a programmer, they may be a man or a woman, but they're a charlatan or victim of charlatans for sure. And furthermore, the petty and stupid way people react to this fact being pointed out means they either have bad motives or Stockholm syndrome. I don't care which is which, since both are wrong.
Huh? What "moral panics" proved what exactly wrong?
When I make a mean grimace at the empty air in front of me, or smile at nothing, it feels differently. Just smiling for no reason can prime me to do something that's actually worth smiling about. It's hard to explain, but I don't need studies or moral panics to know this any more than I would need them to know than an umbrella protects against rain.
I hate how people talk about "AI" and what models "do" or "think". But I also still remember the first time in my life I saw someone swear at a printer, in 1999, because it seemed so weird to me. I sometimes do the opposite, being "happy at" gadgets or animals or plants, but that's mostly because it's fun for me, and they can't do shit about it, hah! They can't stop me from doing this little positive thing for myself. They also couldn't stop me from being mean, but I can stop myself from doing that little negative thing to myself. That's all there is to it.
> Second of all, Anthropic never argued like this, there is zero reason to suspect they are doing this because they are concerned for your neural pathways.
Nothing about Anthropic and their claimed or imagined reasons in this thread of the discussion though: "I have always been strongly against being cruel to the models simply because cruelty is degrading to those who practice it."
"One who is trained or professionally engaged in a branch of engineering. "
Gains you nothing.
> Canada uses a different definition. The state of Missouri uses another.
So? Are you lazily and deceptively suggesting that makes a difference? Or are you even imagining they are using dictionary definitions?
> A professional engineer is competent by virtue of his/her fundamental education and training to apply the scientific method and outlook to the analysis and solution of engineering problems. He/she is able to assume personal responsibility for the development and application of engineering science and knowledge, notably in research, design, construction, manufacturing, superintending, managing, and in the education of the engineer. His/her work is predominantly intellectual and varied and not of a routine mental or physical character.
[..]
> His/her education will have been such as to make him/her capable of closely and continuously following progress in his/her branch of engineering science by consulting newly published works on a worldwide basis, assimilating such information, and applying it independently. He/she is thus placed in a position to make contributions to the development of engineering science or its applications. His/her education and training will have been such that he/she will have acquired a broad and general appreciation of the engineering sciences as well as thorough insight into the special features of his/her own branch.
If programmers can't be bothered, if their employers don't want that, either (if not even less), and yet you say times just magically change, so now people who don't fit that description get called engineers -- how do you call those who do fit that description, who still do those things? "Real engineers"? "Classic engineers?" I don't even care, but you gotta have something, you can't just pretend the real, practical, night and day difference between these things doesn't exist.
The will to implement the stuff we learned, instead of letting dark patterns and churn for the sake of churn get the better of that :P
This is so jumbled. You mean to say that before software, all work was physical? Nah, engineers spent and spend a lot of time at the drawing board, too. It's just that they're not sitting at the plastic table with a sticker of a dog with a toolbox on it.
If you don't follow rules and practices that are external to you and your employer, as you might in aviation or nuclear reactor software, there's not even a chance it's engineering. It can be "software engineering", sure, just the same way "software architect" is not an "architect".
https://ncees.org/wp-content/uploads/Software-Engineering-ex...
> NCEES will discontinue the Principles and Practice of Engineering (PE) Software Engineering exam after the April 2019 exam administration. Since the original offering in 2013, the exam has been administered five times, with a total population of 81 candidates.
If you don't want the same rigor, if you can't handle the same rigor, you don't get the same respect. Because you don't deserve it.
> The final phase will involve a doctor reviewing at least 10% of the total prescriptions issued once a month.
> In the early days of this project, software was treated like an adopted child and not taken as seriously as other engineering disciplines, such as hardware engineering, and was thought of as art and magic, not science. I have always believed that art and science were involved in its creation, but at the time most people thought otherwise. Knowing this, I fought to legitimize software so that both software engineering and those who built it would receive the respect they deserved, so I began using the term “software engineering” to differentiate it from hardware and other forms of engineering. When I first started using these words, they were considered funny. It was a running joke for a long time. They liked to make fun of my radical ideas. Software eventually earned the same respect as any other discipline.
found another retelling: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jul/13/margaret-...
> During the early days of Apollo, software was not taken as seriously as other engineering disciplines. Though in fact we had a complex system of systems, we weren’t getting credit for what was a legitimate field. It was out of desperation I came up with the term, to say: “Hey, we’re engineering too.” It was an ongoing joke for a long time. Then one day in a meeting, one of the most respected hardware gurus explained to everyone that he agreed with me. The process of building software should also be considered an engineering discipline, just like with hardware. It was a memorable moment.
You can't complain to society, the public at large, if you don't acknowledge this. Complain to other isolated individuals who "never agree to live in a society" or whatever.
You call it serviceable, but what purpose does this service? What do you now know about 7-speed bicycles that you didn't know before?
It doesn't really help us improve our code, which wouldn't just be "creating a lot of it really easily", but refactoring existing things. Not just performance, readability, variable and function names and how it's all structured, all the artsy fartsy craftsmanship stuff. Docs that are more readable and more concise. That would be "building" or "development" worth the name.
In other words, the longer we would massage and work on our code with actually beneficial "AI", the better off we would be on the day all models have an outage. Instead of the other way around, and the direction is less expertise, less autonomy, less self-mastery, and also less community, because everybody just makes "their" version of whatever, taking from others instead of collaborating with them.
And all that is on top of the "robbery" that it still is. It's taking what humans made so far, uses it against us, and destroys the "junior pipeline" or however you want to call it. Speaking of, since someone on HN said the comments on https://www.cringely.com/2026/07/16/the-auditors-opinion/ were interesting, I read them, and here's one:
> One of the sadder knock-on effects of the current AI bubble has been how hordes of elderly people are desperately clinging to chatbots as some kind of “miracle cure” that will fulfill all their dreams and fantasies while also saving them from loneliness. I know at least two older people in real life who are suffering from this delusion to some extent.
> The younger people, meanwhile, tend to reject generative AI as “slop” and treat it with the disdain it deserves.
> This is a curious inversion of every other technological breakthrough in human history. In my lifetime, I’ve witnessed the dawn of both personal computers and the Internet, and I’ve seen young people (including myself) get very excited about the possibilities of both. It’s just SO WEIRD to be in the early stages of a new technology that everyone (except old people, evil billionaires, and the usual group of grifters) is kinda meh about.
> I don’t know what that means, but I don’t think it’s a good sign.
> What positive value does the AI actually add that isn't circumventing a legal requirement that we decided to put in place?
You only reply with stuff nobody said. Which explains why you "see those fallacies repeated" every time, if you bring them up. A simple solution is to stick things actually are saying.
> it is anti-solidarity if you benefit from a system that you have never contributed
What's your stance on disabled children who can never sustain themselves?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33869178
the more things change, and all that...
> They quite literally demand the world despite having never created a single thing themselves, blindly consuming, never producing.
This is referring to the people who object to writers and artists getting ripped off, right? Not to the people who built giant systems to slurp up all the things they haven't produce and can't produce themselves, to produce an average approximation they then think they "made"?
So iterate then. Make things, then train software on the things you made to made more things like that. Nobody would ever get "mad" about that, at worst they wouldn't like it.
What do I care that a bird can fly? I'm happy for bird being able to fly, it makes the world I live in more interesting. If they had to walk just so I don't get jealous, I still wouldn't be able to fly, and I couldn't befriend birds who can fly. Likewise, if there was actual artificial intelligence, it would be a new type of mind I could communicate with. That'd be exciting, and for me preferable to anything controlled by the humans who are currently vying to run the show.
Uh, no? So much of what we learn and take for granted as common sense is not learned via language, and not even expressible in it.
The extreme opposite of that would hordes of people (or robots) with nail clippers patrolling everything 24/7. When any tile is even just chipped (or when when the scan shows the wind carried away a few molucules from the surface), it gets replaced. When tiles in that exact same color aren't available anymore, they all get replaced. Heck, when the sun was out and faded the color of something slightly more than areas that were in shade, the whole area has to be rebuilt.
Or take cutting your fingernails: do it once a week, do it daily, or why not every second? Every moment they're growing a bit, and they don't remain in the shape determined as well cut by their owner for even an hour! Unless you keep cutting/filing them. But while you are cutting your nails, you can't be cutting your hair, so that's gross. And even if you could, you cannot cut all strands of hair at the same time, it'll always be screwed up.
So of course the answer is somewhere in between, it has to be, and it's probably not the same for everybody.
You don't even need to believe them, just think about how you would ever be sure you know objective reality fully. Actually do it.
When I was a little kid, my go to thought experiment was imagining atoms as balls that we can't crack open that are filled with sand, and that even if we could find the formulas that describe their movements perfectly, we could never know if that's how atoms move, or if there's something inside them (the sand). Really dumb, but I was like 9 yo and knew nothing, never heard of Gödel or quantum mechanics (what's your excuse?). But I still could understand, not intuitively, but by actually thinking (not just talking) about it, that you can never be 100% sure from inside. Even if you found out everything, and your model of the world matches it perfectly, you could never be sure that it is so. And it turns out this is true and an old discovery. If you could disprove it, you would be famous for millenia, maybe forever. Bluffing on HN won't get you there.
Oh the irony of you talking about believing in magic. What do you base this wild claim on? Can you cite a single known physicist or mathematician that agrees?
> And so in its actual procedure physics studies not these inscrutable qualities, but pointer-readings which we can observe. The readings, it is true, reflect the fluctuations of the world-qualities; but our exact knowledge is of the readings, not of the qualities. The former have as much resemblance to the latter as a telephone number has to a subscriber.
-- Arthur Stanley Eddington
I can agree to to it with the qualifier "in a lot of ways", just not without. We learn about a lot of US crimes by the reporting of US citizens and journalists, a lot of which is available to buy and re-print within the US. Meanwhile, people in China still cannot simply remember Tiananmen, much less publish books about it.
I would say, be afraid and use the fear (not to ruminate, but to organise and do things), but also be optimistic, and use that, too (not to imagine what people will do then when they're not doing it now, but to believe it's possible helping making it reality, now).