I do think there can be element of snobbishness around it, but that's not really the point. The overculture of corporate America has finally overtaken the hackerish (relative) meritocracy of early tech, of Getting Things Done and Building Cool Stuff. Rewards are increasingly tied to metrics decoupled from useful outcomes. If you want to get paid a big tech salary you need to go through the leetcode grind, and do things like project sufficient "masculine energy" (lol). Management performance is measured by hiring and expansion more than product delivery and success. The ethics of what you are doing are completely secondary to shareholder value. You still need technical skills, but they are somewhat less important, there are many more competing incentives than there used to be, and the stakes are higher. This has been happening since the early days - cf. Microserfs, written all the way back in 1995 - it's just that tech has worked its way so thoroughly into the fabric of corporate existence that the two have more or less completely merged.
I also enjoy coding! It’s fun. It’s also only about 10% of my job as a software developer, and I can and do use an LLM for it whenever I can find an opportunity. The author is a professor. Not to disparage that perspective, but she paints a picture of the joys of programming that are overshadowed in environments where you are actually building real world robust systems with clueless users, vague requirements, shifting budgets and priorities, etc.
As to why not use C, or assembly, it’s not just about the code, but the toolchains. These require way more knowledge and experience to get something working than, say, Python - although that has its own rather horrible complexities with packaging and portability on the back end of the code authoring process.
I have done a rigorous job of self diagnosis. I am autistic. I’ve also had the privilege of being able to pursue meditation, therapy, and other self development practices: I’m not as severely autistic as I was as a young man. I also have childhood trauma that I know contributes to many of my autistic presentations — see the last section on comorbidity. I also have some distinct ADHD symptoms but have never pursued that path because my hyperfocus tends to win out often enough that it’s not a hindrance to productivity. But it still causes problems elsewhere in my life.
For some people these diagnoses will be a very good fit with clear predictive outcomes. But many of us have a grab-bag of traits from several categories and still mostly get along in life, maybe with some assistance particular to one of these diagnosis but no more help overall than anyone else needs otherwise.
The diagnostic models suck. They are too broad here, too narrow there, misunderstood by professionals. I had a psychiatrist (mis)diagnose me as bipolar based on a 45 minute appointment when I was in some sort of crisis in my early 30s and that ended up haunting me years later when applying for a job with a security clearance. I didn’t even know about it at the time. This was one of the top rated doctors in a major metro area. What a sham.
The field is a mess. It has a terrible history of horrific abuse. Some autistic children still receive involuntary-to-them ECT. I think we should be supportive of research into these topics while also being critical of the very obvious problems with them.
I think your point could be better made with less vitriolic language, and I also think you get a few things wrong: a bunch of my peers were over-medicated to the point of being senseless during the late 80s and early 90s. These drugs were pushed on kids by many well meaning but exasperated parents whose children - mostly boys - could not sit still and behave in the way demanded of them by school and society. So it's a mixed bag with regard to the intent behind medication, and the effectiveness with which it was applied. Nowadays, if anything it's harder than ever to get amphetamines because of US drug scheduling policies and our patchwork, piecemeal healthcare system.
I both agree and disagree with the over-diagnosis claim. Yes, everyone is suddenly autistic, which lessens the meaning or impact of the term. Also, the DSM 5 reclassifies a good portion of human behavior under the umbrella of ASD, so this is in part driven by the diagnostic model itself. We continue to see rising rates of severe autism in children, which are likely attributable to this reclassification as well as better common understanding of the diagnostic criteria. Presumably, just as many adults either qualify now or would have qualified as children.
At the same time, there’s the neurodiversity movement that seeks to destigmatize and depathologize these diagnoses for both high functioning and more profoundly disabled individuals. Just because you don’t conform to the norm - and ASD is heavily defined in relation to deviation from an underspecified norm - does not make you “mentally ill.” So we have autism as an identity additional to a diagnosis, which I think can be really empowering for people, and also cause confusion and frustration for others. It’s a reclaiming of “disability” from the paternalistic and abusive medical and pseudoscientific practitioners that have been harming autistic people for decades.
I also wish you were not being downvoted. You express some common sentiments and I think your comment adds to the conversation.
Ironically, this is one the part of the document that jumped out at me as having been written by AI. The em-dash and "this isn't...but" pattern are louder than the text at this point. It seriously calls into question who is authoring what, and what their actual motives are.
We job hop, have multiple hustles. Many people on this board have started multiple companies, sometimes at once, on an ongoing basis. Do you only want just one friend? People tend to have multiple romantic/sexual entanglements, sometimes at once, but generally more than one over a lifetime.
I think this can be a useful maxim to get you to the next day, but in reality it takes a lot more than one of anything for a fulfilling life. We grow and change and need novelty. We are held in a web of interdependent, ever-shifting relationships - with people, businesses, material goods, ecology. I think that generally people are seeking connection in a broader sphere. To be held in community, to have multiple significant identities (mother/wife/boss), to live in richness and abundance where any one thing is not make or break.
Exactly this, it’s just another outgrowth of the attention economy, and I assume there is a payoff for many people or they would not be engaged with the platform. I assume part of that is purely for the attention, but part of it must be remunerative from a professional standpoint as well. The lines get blurry fast in influencer spaces. What is work, what is personal, what is even real, and how much does any of that matter as long as you are getting attention?
> That sexual attraction to romantic love to economic unit to reproduction, it’s a strange bundle, but who are we to argue with success.
Given that marriages fail at roughly a 50% rate, and easily half of married people are miserable based on my personal anecdotal data, I have to question the metric of “success” here. You also don’t have to go very far back in history to decouple these factors!
For this holiday season, I am grateful for no-fault divorce, and companionship sans hierarchy.
I have been in therapy on and off through most of my life. There are parts of the process and the profession that are helpful. There are also parts that are paternalistic bordering on abusive. “Literally just someone you pay to the be happiest…” is a small part of the picture. I take issue with this view of therapy, and the idea that it is somehow a universal force for good that will benefit everyone.
I have met some pretty unhinged therapists - both as a client and socially. I won’t even go into the history of psychiatry and clinical care.
One of the questions I like to pose is, what are we doing as a society by sending so many people to therapy? What do these practices do at a large scale? And to all those who decry things like gun violence: if you think our current mental health system would somehow be able to address the larger ills of society if only they had more funding, I have some serious questions about your view of its overarching effectiveness, and the specific effects of these practices.
Almost every bit of work I've hired people to do has been through an intermediary of some sort. Usually one with "contractor" or "engineer" as a title. They are the ones who can organize others, have connections, understand talent, plan and keep schedules, recognize quality, and can identify and troubleshoot problems. They may also be craftsmen, or have once been, but the work is not necessarily their craft. If you want anything project-scoped, you have a team, there is someone in a leadership role (even if informally), someone handling the money, etc. Craftsmanship may or may not happen within that framework, they are somewhat orthogonal concerns, and I don't see any reason to disrespect the people that make room for it to happen.
Of course you can also get useless intermediaries, which may be more akin to vibe coding. Not entirely without merit, but the human in the loop is providing questionable value. I think this is the exception rather than the norm.
Likewise, just because you've been forbidden to do something, doesn't mean that it's bad or the wrong action to take. We've really opened Pandora's box with AI. I'm not all doom and gloom about it like some prominent figures in the space, but taking some time to pause and reflect on its implications certainly seems warranted.
The chatbot is great as a first-line of research for many things, but something like this needs to be backed up by actual research to make a concrete claim. It will absolutely fabricate falsehoods or misrepresent truths based on an unknown number of stochastic factors behind any response. Shame on your for propagating a bunch of mumbo-jumbo that every reader must go verify for themselves if they want to substantiate or refute your claim - in response to a request for substantiation!
I have tried prozac in my teens and zoloft in my 30s. Prozac made me dissociate pretty hard, I found myself between classes not knowing where I was coming from or going. Zoloft did nothing but give me the zaps when I came off it.
There have been some serious efforts made to reproduce the original groundbreaking results that showed how effective SSRIs were, without much success. Anecdotally, I know plenty of people who have benefited from them, so I would not say they are ineffective as a blanket statement. I do think it’s important to understand that nobody really knows how these drugs will impact any one individual, and it’s trial and error to find something that may help.
We’ve been talking about federated micropayment technologies for some two decades. I’d happily pay for content but I refuse to sign up for 30+ publisher websites. If I could opt to pay $.25 for some article without giving the site all my personal data or incurring a subscription I’d be all for it. As it is I either “steal” the content through an archiving site or simply leave the site. More and more it’s the latter. I’d also happily pay some monthly fee for unlimited content from a consortium of publishers rather than disable my ad blocker, and let them sort out how much each one gets based on my browsing habits. None of these seem like hard technical problems, it’s certainly not impossible. I think the days of believing content comes without any cost are long behind us.
Humans are just better at communicating about their process. They will spend hours talking over architectural decisions, implementation issues, writing technical details in commit messages and issue notes, and in this way they not only debug their decisions but socialize knowledge of both the code and the reasons it came to be that way. Communication and collaboration are the real adaptive skills of our species. To the extent AI can aid in those, it will be useful. To the extent it goes off and does everything in a silo, it will ultimately be ignored - much like many developers who attempt this.
I do think the primary strengths of genai are more in comprehension and troubleshooting than generating code - so far. These activities play into the collaboration and communication narrative. I would not trust an AI to clean up cruft or refactor a codebase unsupervised. Even if it did an excellent job, who would really know?
Through all their gyrations there is still something inherently contrived and performative to their interpersonal relationships that are far afield from normal, but pass well enough to permit connection. This line really resonated with me:
> I was going around dangling the possibility of emotional connection indiscriminately, ignoring the fact that it’s entirely reasonable to interpret this as flirtation.
I am still struggling to understand the way in which many people naturally form casual connections with others. In this example, a casual connection might be a hookup or a makeout session without it turning into a relationship. In another case from their article, it may be exchanging some personal stories at a house party without it turning into a four hour ordeal, or following up and developing a close, meaningful friendship. I perceive a lot of confusion here - and in my own life - about personal wants and needs being met, meeting someone else’s needs, where one’s personal boundaries lie, and how we effectively communicate them - or not.
In consent-forward spaces you get a lot of neurodivergent people using explicit verbal negotiation and agreement on everything, but this is a consent style that very much may not land well for people outside of one of those subcultures. Therapy and other trauma-informed modalities carry similar problems. It’s fine and great to develop subculture norms for the people participating in them, but it may not help them navigate the rest of the world. And yet, I’m not sure what else can be done. My social development mirrors the author’s, and I’m still unsatisfied with my results, even though I have more meaningful connections now than I used to, so this is not all without merit. It may just be the best that some people can do.
I believe they can create a novel instance of a system from a sufficient number of relevant references - i.e. implement a set of already-known features without (much) code duplication. LLMs are certainly capable of this level of generalization due to their huge non-relevant reference set. Whether they can expand beyond that into something truly novel from a feature/functionality standpoint is a whole other, and less well-defined, question. I tend to agree that they are closed systems relative to their corpus. But then, aren't we? I feel like the aperture for true novelty to enter is vanishingly small, and cultures put a premium on it vis-a-vis the arts, technological innovation, etc. Almost every human endeavor is just copying and iterating on prior examples.
A more cynical take/question: is Mozilla just pursuing these initiatives because their corporate sponsors need to push AI everywhere they can to justify their burn, in the hopes that a profitable use case eventually arises with a sufficient user base accustomed to the technology to pay for it?
Serious question: to what end? I'm pretty adept at skimming text and honing in on things of interest. I have also spent years in academic and professional environments developing those skills, so I genuinely may not understand some common use cases.
It has gotten better. The `vmmem` hyper-v process would regularly freeze up and require a reboot on my Windows 10 work laptop. I’ve successfully run WSL for days/weeks without issue on Windows 11. As a tradeoff, I’ve had the Weston container freeze up and be unrecoverable without restarting WSL.
Missed opportunity to procure a goat. When I’m doing project management like this, if I ever have a minute to come up for air between getting all the essentials in place, I will absolutely prioritize little things like that for my own amusement and, hopefully, that of the client. I would at least have gone as far as lining up a supplier, getting a quote, and letting the client know we’re locked and loaded with a goat if they really want to pull the trigger.
I definitely hit my coding peak somewhere in my late 30s. I don’t know how much slower I actually am, vs how much less I care. For one, I care to not write code that I’m not going to use. I spend way more time planning, talking about, and mulling over the thing I want to build, and I generally get it right the first time. Maybe part of the lesson of experience is not being in such a rush. Second, I’ve written so much code that I just don’t care as much about that activity as I used to. When I’m properly motivated to do something I still feel quick and energetic. I’m learning ASL with my girlfriend and she’s frustrated that I move faster than her, at some 13 years her senior. Maybe it will catch up to me eventually.
There’s certainly a difference with AI. Not only can it reproduce exactly the same characters - in fact I doubt you can train the style without this ability - it puts those characters in reach of crayon-age children at a professional capacity. This crosses the line between copying and enabling IP theft in my mind. While I don’t agree with our current IP laws, the ease and rapidity of this seems like a real problem. How long before some kid in a third world country can produce a feature length Ghibli-esque movie and distribute it online? And how much will this dilute their brand etc? Is it really so much to ask the AI companies to filter their training sets?
I think this is a salient counterpoint. While I value online interactions, I also don’t want them to be my predominant form of socialization. That works well for some people, less well for others, but it’s increasingly becoming the de facto mode of bonding with people over common interests. Because, you know, you can find that group of people really into the same thing you are. I also work from home full time and it requires a lot of continual work on my part to get my social needs met - sometimes impossible if I’m tired from working a full week.
Surely there is some middle ground. When we don’t have anything in common with our real life counterparts, there’s an issue. Likewise if we are forced to exclusively socialize with people we have nothing in common with. I feel like we’re on a pendulum swing where online interactions are taking over everything, and I’m hoping that swings back to some extent, but not to the thing we had before.
The conclusion I’ve come to from works like Flatland, 4D toys, etc., is that we simply don’t have the neural circuitry to grasp anything beyond three dimensions. We can reason about them, we can make inferences about the whole from partial understanding, but we cannot truly grasp more than three, or perhaps only for an instant of forced conceptualization using heuristics like you mentioned. Even three is a stretch, our minds have adapted to build a three dimensional realm from something like a 2.5 dimensional field of combined visual, tactile, and auditory stimuli. I suspect 3D reasoning itself is a huge adaptive trait compared to most other animals.
In the middle of Albuquerque. Rural areas offer hardship pay to attract medical professionals, but it’s really touch and go. IHS has its own host of issues.
I waited over three years to get a routine colonoscopy in New Mexico and finally just got one after moving out of state. More standard waits for a specialist there are 9-18 months, if you can even find someone competent in the specialty. Many people have to go out of state for care.
Provider availability is non-uniform across the US.
The Post is a plaything to him that has a disproportionate impact on the rest of the world. We’ve created systems that allow a few individuals to control resources beyond the wildest dreams of the monarchs of days past. Whether it is about power, control, self-aggrandizement, or simply a special interest to him, there is no accountability at the end of the day, and we are all excellent at justifying and rationalizing our decisions to ourselves. I don’t think there has to be an ulterior motive per se, it’s simply human nature.
That seems like an obvious problem. Less obvious is, how many people does it meaningfully help, and how big is the impact of redirecting people to a crisis hotline? I’m legitimately unsure. I have talked to the chatbot about psychological issues and it is reasonably well-informed about modern therapeutic practices and can provide helpful responses.