"All that time babysitting the AIs just to be a little faster" doesn't seem like an accurate/unbiased portrayal of what they said: "The v1 feature feels more like a v3 given the amount of iteration it already went through."

Sometimes I think the main value in AI-maintained code being “high quality” is when the structure can enforce invariants. If invalid states aren’t representable, then the AI can’t easily add bugs in the future.

Of course that just leads to: what’s the best way to achieve that goal? Through elegant code or adding lots of tests? Which is a debate from long before LLMs existed.

What an amazingly goofy (but also kinda maybe makes sense?) feature!

Why? This doesn't follow at all.

why not? if he's hired to do the task he's supposedly an expert in, and that is now done by AI, what's stopping the company from replacing him with any other person at a lower cost that operates the same AI?

I look at such things similarly, and have never felt like "team building exercises" were particularly valuable. I'm working with these people on the products we build for hours every day; I don't need to do an escape room with them to "team build".

That said, I have to recognize that this may be partially because of my personality. I don't "do great" at mixers like this. I'd rather go home and be with my family than drink beer—regardless of label—in a corporate setting. People describe me as charismatic and engaging one-on-one, but I'm awkward and unhappy at a big crowd event.

But there are other people whom I think get a lot of value and connections out of them! So it's kinda hard for me to say.

Downgrades in quality, though, stick out like a sore thumb. "I didn't really like going to these things before, but at least they had good beer." It can also be a real "it's the thought that counts" sort of thing. When you show me that you're willing to spend less on me, it sends a signal, sometimes stronger than if you'd never spent anything on me in the first place.

The team building seems fun the first time but then you start seeing the same stuff year after year and it gets so old.

As an American: we're gonna have to touch the stove to learn. Wish so badly that it weren't so.

Can't be doing rEaL woRk unless you're flipping front panel switches to input machine code instructions.

Machine operation is real work! :)

I mean what is real work anyways?

Like take finance where people just email broken spreadsheets around all day. If they stop doing that then farmers can't get loans to buy crops which means crops don't get planted and so on-so-forth.

Certainly emailing spreadsheets doesn't seem very "real" but there's actual value in providing liquidity it's just not physically demanding.

On the flip side, professional sports is very physically demanding but can you really call what kids do for fun "real work"?

From the perspective of these kids real work probably involves working with your hands. I don't think we need to get too upset over what people who have yet to enter the workforce have to say about "real work". They need to be employed for a few years before they learn the lesson that almost ALL work is fake work.

My definition of real work is - can I point at something and be proud of it? It might not even be something physical (but often is) and my involvement may not be obvious (say, managing the spreadsheets for a building project), but there it is, the thing I worked on.

That seems like more of test of self-esteem. I can work on something yet still not be proud of it, for example.

Yes - but it’s part of it for me. Digging a giant hole would be real hard work, and something I can point at, but I might not be proud of it; it may have no point.

Sure, and my goal is to not that part away from you.

Just to clarify, if said hole had no point, then would it be real work or not? What if the hole was merely a step in a grand plan? As in, if the end result provides a sense of pride, then does the aggregated amount of real vs. fake work that lead to final product have any bearing on the pride of the final product?

I guess it comes down to the teleology - the reason why the work is done. If the end has no relation to the work (e.g., it comes down to the dollars) then I think you’re going to be a bit unsatisfied no matter how well remunerated. Terms like “pointless” and “busywork” come into play.

It if makes you tired and you're tired of it, it's work.

Seems like there's a good argument to be made that we'll have plenty of opportunities for valuable growth and learning, just about different things. Just like it's always been with technology. The machine does some of the stuff I used to do so now I do some different stuff.

This seems the most likely explanation to me.

It's just much more visually interesting than a page full of perfect burgers. Each one looks like a unique thing from the real world; they don't "look AI", as the kids say these days.