“Let’s go another way where AI helps us to do things, to learn things, to create things, but in ways that we enhance and advance with our distinct perspectives and unique experiences!”
AI can’t do that. And, even if it could be made to look like it is, no one you’re paying is going to bother.
Fucking idiots.
"I can’t be an idiot, look at all the money I have. "
Stupid is as stupid does. Idiot.
You don’t get to complain about the slop when you built the slop factory.
…And mandated their employees use it.
Now he’s crying they did what they were told
He’s probably only complaining because it’s affecting him personally. If it was only destroying everyone else’s lives he would be happy to be an executioner. After all, he’s just following orders.
aparently these tech ceo shields thier own children from the brainrot/slop, they know its wrong its doing harm by placing them in expensive private schools away from the “brainrot”
Remember, though: Microsoft invented the slop factory when they created Microsoft Office.
Sending useless documents back and forth via Outlook predates AI by decades.
I thought they admitted defeat, embracing the uselessness and futility of nearly all office work when they released SharePoint, but I guess they’re still just getting started 🤷
Ahh the good old days when no mid size corp bothered to hire an onprem Sharepoint dev so the install just went unused
Or worse, used!
Then don’t invent the fucking torment nexus!
The problem is that they see people hating the torment nexus and then they assume it must be because they didn’t market it correctly.
Like "oh I guess they don’t like it because they can’t share it, let’s add a suffering multiplexer so they can enjoy it with friends and family*
*⠀for⠀a⠀small**⠀fee
**⠀might⠀not⠀be⠀small
I keep shoving puppies into the shredder but all i get are shredded puppies!!
You need to leave!!!
I really think you should.
Now just imagine putting that shit into the code for your flagship operating system without any kind of human oversight.
Lmao my immediate thought was AI when a .NET update broke the Cambria font recently
I’d give him the benefit of the doubt, because surely not everyone at microslop wants copilot everywhere, but he heads the department that put copilot into excel, so all my sympathies evaporated.
Microsoft (and maybe all the AI companies) made at least few mistakes in the marketing of this technology. AI isn’t a replacement for human accountability. It still requires oversight and expertise. It is great for a first draft. It is terrible for a complete work product. Agents (with the right loops to verify accuracy) are reasonably complex - and most companies don’t have the people development infrastructure to train their teams with the right skills to build them. Honestly, AI is shining a light on how terribly businesses have been run over the last 30 years, and how lazy business leaders are.
First draft of what? The AI* doesn’t know what you’re trying to make, so to use it, you first need to write a prompt to convey to it what you’re trying to convey. If what you’re trying to make takes the form of prose, there’s your first draft already; there’s nothing the AI can add other than padding and replacing your voice with a psychopath’s. But to begin with, if you have the skill to turn a first draft into a final product, it’s almost always going to be faster to just use that skill to create the first draft yourself instead of trying to convey to an AI what it’s supposed to be like. If it isn’t, it’s something that’s so easy to describe that there’s either no value in making it or those few words are already the perfect way to convey it.
Also, this just completely undermines the whole thing:
It still requires oversight and expertise.
The sole virtue AI arguably has, is its accessibility; anyone who can read and write a supported natural language, can make use of it. But the moment it starts requiring expertise, that accessibility becomes worthless. To anyone who is even somewhat serious about what they’re trying to do, that natural language interface just offers far too little control for their purposes.
*) For the purposes of this comment, “AI” refers to the kinds of natural language-driven generative AI heavily marketed by companies like Microsoft, not the general concept of artificial intelligence or even the underlying technology of those products.
This is an incredibly stupid take, can’t believe people upvoted this shit, lol
Have you not used AI agents anytime in the past 6 months?
They can pull in information that you don’t write down, it can create Powerpoint slides, it can create mermaid diagrams from your description.
Those are not things you just do manually because you can? At that point why not code in Notepad instead of relying on the stupid machine assisted IDEs?
You may want to have your AI re-summarize that one for you. It seems to have royally fucked up somewhere.
You asked for it:
This is an incredibly stupid take, and I genuinely can’t believe people are upvoting it.
Have you actually used an AI agent at any point in the last six months?
Your entire argument seems to rest on the bizarre assumption that describing what you want is roughly equivalent in effort to producing it yourself. It isn’t. That’s literally why abstractions and tools exist.
I can describe the architecture I want in a few paragraphs and have an agent generate a Mermaid diagram. I can give it a pile of documents and have it pull together information I didn’t manually write into the prompt. I can describe the structure and content of a presentation and have it generate the actual PowerPoint. I can give it a repetitive refactoring task that I fully understand how to perform myself and have it apply that change across a codebase.
The fact that I need enough expertise to verify the result doesn’t somehow eliminate the time saved producing it.
I know how to write Java without an IDE. That doesn’t mean IntelliJ becomes useless because I need to understand Java to verify whether the code it generates, refactors, or autocompletes is correct.
And the claim that requiring expertise somehow eliminates AI’s usefulness is particularly strange. Most useful tools require expertise. IDEs require expertise. CAD software requires expertise. Excel requires expertise if you’re doing anything remotely complicated with it. Their purpose isn’t necessarily to let an unskilled person impersonate an expert; it’s to make an expert substantially more productive.
Natural language also isn’t the only interface. Modern agents operate on files, repositories, documents, databases, APIs, tool outputs, search results, and existing context. The prompt can literally be “turn this into a presentation” or “diagram this architecture.” You don’t have to painstakingly reconstruct the entire source material in prose first.
There are plenty of legitimate criticisms of generative AI: hallucinations, unreliable output, loss of control in certain workflows, mediocre prose, inappropriate use cases, people blindly trusting the output, etc.
But “if you know enough to check its work, you might as well have done the work yourself” is basically an argument for coding in Notepad because a competent programmer shouldn’t need a stupid machine-assisted IDE.
Knowing how to do something and wanting to spend your time manually doing every part of it are not the same thing.
is basically an argument for coding in Notepad because a competent programmer shouldn’t need a stupid machine-assisted IDE.
I actually don’t need to know how my IDE works to use it. That is one benefit to not using dice as your main construction technique.
the bizarre assumption that describing what you want is roughly equivalent in effort to producing it yourself.
With increasing degrees of specificity, it kind of is, yeah. It only saves time in places where you don’t care about shit-quality work.
I actually don’t need to know how my IDE works to use it.
Neither do I need to know how a transformer works to use an AI agent. What does that have to do with anything?
I need to know Java to recognize whether IntelliJ’s refactoring produced sensible Java, just as I need domain expertise to recognize whether an AI agent produced sensible output. “Requires oversight and expertise” does not mean “requires understanding the internal implementation of the tool.”
With increasing degrees of specificity, it kind of is, yeah.
No, it really isn’t, and this is probably the strangest part of your argument.
Specificity of requirements and effort of implementation are two completely different things.
“Take these 30 classes, rename this field, update its usages, add null checks at these boundaries, update the affected tests, and run the test suite” is a reasonably specific description of a task. It is quite obviously not equivalent in effort to manually performing every edit.
“Create a sequence diagram showing the interaction between these five services for this request flow” can take seconds to describe and considerably longer to manually construct.
“Take these documents, extract these specific metrics, compare them by quarter, and put the results into a PowerPoint using this existing deck as the visual template” is a perfectly comprehensible specification. Actually reading the documents, extracting the data, calculating the comparisons, creating the charts and assembling the slides is where the work is.
This distinction is the entire reason programming exists. A specification describes what computation you want performed. We don’t conclude that because SQL lets me precisely specify which data I want from a database, I might as well manually inspect every row.
And “it only saves time where you don’t care about shit-quality work” is just begging the question. You’ve defined AI output as shit and then concluded that anyone accepting AI output must therefore not care about quality.
The useful workflow isn’t “ask AI for something and blindly ship whatever comes out.” It’s “specify the task, let the machine perform the expensive mechanical portion, inspect the result, and correct or reject it where necessary.”
Sometimes that is slower than doing it yourself. Sometimes the output is shit. Sometimes AI is simply the wrong tool.
But the idea that describing a task with sufficient precision inevitably approaches the effort required to execute that task is just demonstrably false.
If that were true, half of software engineering wouldn’t exist.
There is like a very basic topological fact here that you are just failing to grasp.
Specificity of requirements and effort of implementation are two completely different things.
No, they’re not. Implementations are just requirements with very high specificity. When you roll your eyes over the horribly inept dogshit your AI produces and then correct it, you are adding specificity to the system. This can proceed ad infinitum until you end up just doing the whole thing yourself—which I have done with Suno, because Suno is garbage.
You’ve defined AI output as shit and then concluded that anyone accepting AI output must therefore not care about quality.
It’s a rule that’s served me well. I think I’ll keep doing it.
“Create a sequence diagram showing the interaction between these five services for this request flow” can take seconds to describe and considerably longer to manually construct.
It is extremely funny you would put this up as an example.
I will have to manually construct it anyway because that is literally the only way I’ll know if the AI-that-fucks-up has fucked it up or not.
