3 ms·

The problem isn't how you, an engineer, perceives the tool could be useful. The problem is how your CEO, not an engineer, perceives the tool could be useful.

elforce002 4y ago
This. I asked a question regarding this on a forum and I got downvoted to oblivion just because I said a manager/CTO/CEO could see this as an opportunity to lay off people, cut salaries, etc...
- mrbombastic 4y ago
  I am skeptical that this will happen but if it does it seems to me it will still be a short term situation. I don’t believe the world’s need for software, especially high quality software, is anywhere near met. There are many problems waiting to be solved with software that just aren’t due to cost or time of implementation. The outcome will be more software and more complex software, you may as an individual engineer be expected to manage and produce more software then before but the demand for software engineers will not be reduced because all of the sudden there is much more software in the world.
- Teever 4y ago
  Maybe those laid off people can start a business that replaces the CEO/CTO with an AI.
credit_guy 4y ago
Reality has a way to make itself perceived at some point.
- mydogcanpurr 4y ago
  M̶a̶r̶k̶e̶t̶s̶ MBAs and their ilk can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.
furyofantares 4y ago
Alright, then I'll be the CEO.
xboxnolifes 4y ago
If it's a real problem, it'll only be a temporary one that eventually self-corrects.
Mountain_Skies 4y ago
The CEO at a company I worked for a few years ago suddenly one day discovered open source. He decided that we were now going to be a software company and "the nerds will do the work for free!" Not even paraphrasing there, that's what he said at a companywide town hall meeting. He thought he was brilliant for discovering open source and that he was the first to think of exploiting it for commercial gain. Bankruptcy reorganization took longer than expected but he's still CEO, so I guess it didn't impact him very much but lots of people lost their jobs and everyone who owned stock was wiped out, which included a good chunk of the employees.
- HervalFreire 4y ago
  The problem is your CEO was right. Exploiting open source is the right move. Instead of hiring engineers to write an operating system you guys likely exploited Linux and a bunch of other free tools. 100 percent: open source has contributed to less demand. It's the only logical conclusion. The thing is that supply is so low that even with less demand it still outstrips supply. Here's the the thing we should be cautious about. Times change. Technology changes, the culture changes and interest rates also change. Demand may not always outstrip supply.
  - voxl 4y ago
    No, the CEO was wrong. You're conflating a serendipitous use of open source software with a targeted exploitation of it. People decided to open source Linux, GCC, and other tools. So developers at companies use them, because they are available. This is not exploitation, though, it is the intention. Developers made these tools specifically for other developers to use them, even at their jobs. The CEO, however, wants to convince developers to work on software that would drive value for the company. In essence, the CEO wants to trick open source developers. This is clearly doomed to fail.
    - roflyear 4y ago
      I know commercial products where the code is open source (and largely useless to anything except the product) and people contribute. Decent Espresso is one. It is insane anyone contributes but they do. Rich owner gets tons of free labor.
HervalFreire 4y ago
I mean how you perceive the tool is relevant as well. It's just self delusion and denial. It's obvious if your productivity increases because of AI it diminishes the need of another person's productivity. You give everyone more AI tools you could increase productivity to levels beyond what is necessary. If some productivity isn't necessary it's laid off. Simple logic. It's quite obvious. It's just people have a fascination and love for this technology such that they need to construct a delusional narrative that validates their love and validates their moral imperatives. But deep down they know, because it's really really straightforward the consequences of any tool like this.
- joefourier 4y ago
  Increased efficiency leads to more demand, not less. This is known as the Jevons paradox in economics (see: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox). The historical precedent would be for increased productivity to lead to more software being developed, not the same amount but by fewer developers.
  - HervalFreire 4y ago
    Except how did the company go bankrupt then? This paradox only occurs if every resource is abundant. We tend to see it a lot (especially in the last decade) because of the easy money policies by the Fed in the last decade or so. Following your example, if we have unlimited money and gas prices are cheap, we buy more gas. But with limited money, when gas gets cheaper, we don't buy more gas, we usually allocate more money for more essentials. The scenario with a bankruptcy is largely parallel to what we're seeing recently with interest rates and the lay offs. Free money is being tightened. With limited money the paradox no longer functions. Big tech is not going to hire people to write existing software they can get on the open source world, so they let go of a bunch of people. You can literally see the two curves correlate ever since interest rates started to rise... Open source projects are going up right now while lay offs are also increasing... violating the paradox.
    - joefourier 4y ago

elforce002 4y ago

This. I asked a question regarding this on a forum and I got downvoted to oblivion just because I said a manager/CTO/CEO could see this as an opportunity to lay off people, cut salaries, etc...

mrbombastic 4y ago
I am skeptical that this will happen but if it does it seems to me it will still be a short term situation. I don’t believe the world’s need for software, especially high quality software, is anywhere near met. There are many problems waiting to be solved with software that just aren’t due to cost or time of implementation. The outcome will be more software and more complex software, you may as an individual engineer be expected to manage and produce more software then before but the demand for software engineers will not be reduced because all of the sudden there is much more software in the world.
Teever 4y ago
Maybe those laid off people can start a business that replaces the CEO/CTO with an AI.

credit_guy 4y ago

Reality has a way to make itself perceived at some point.

mydogcanpurr 4y ago
M̶a̶r̶k̶e̶t̶s̶ MBAs and their ilk can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.

furyofantares 4y ago

Alright, then I'll be the CEO.

xboxnolifes 4y ago

If it's a real problem, it'll only be a temporary one that eventually self-corrects.

Mountain_Skies 4y ago

The CEO at a company I worked for a few years ago suddenly one day discovered open source. He decided that we were now going to be a software company and "the nerds will do the work for free!" Not even paraphrasing there, that's what he said at a companywide town hall meeting. He thought he was brilliant for discovering open source and that he was the first to think of exploiting it for commercial gain. Bankruptcy reorganization took longer than expected but he's still CEO, so I guess it didn't impact him very much but lots of people lost their jobs and everyone who owned stock was wiped out, which included a good chunk of the employees.

HervalFreire 4y ago
The problem is your CEO was right. Exploiting open source is the right move. Instead of hiring engineers to write an operating system you guys likely exploited Linux and a bunch of other free tools. 100 percent: open source has contributed to less demand. It's the only logical conclusion. The thing is that supply is so low that even with less demand it still outstrips supply. Here's the the thing we should be cautious about. Times change. Technology changes, the culture changes and interest rates also change. Demand may not always outstrip supply.
- voxl 4y ago
  No, the CEO was wrong. You're conflating a serendipitous use of open source software with a targeted exploitation of it. People decided to open source Linux, GCC, and other tools. So developers at companies use them, because they are available. This is not exploitation, though, it is the intention. Developers made these tools specifically for other developers to use them, even at their jobs. The CEO, however, wants to convince developers to work on software that would drive value for the company. In essence, the CEO wants to trick open source developers. This is clearly doomed to fail.
  - roflyear 4y ago
    I know commercial products where the code is open source (and largely useless to anything except the product) and people contribute. Decent Espresso is one. It is insane anyone contributes but they do. Rich owner gets tons of free labor.

HervalFreire 4y ago

I mean how you perceive the tool is relevant as well. It's just self delusion and denial. It's obvious if your productivity increases because of AI it diminishes the need of another person's productivity. You give everyone more AI tools you could increase productivity to levels beyond what is necessary. If some productivity isn't necessary it's laid off. Simple logic. It's quite obvious. It's just people have a fascination and love for this technology such that they need to construct a delusional narrative that validates their love and validates their moral imperatives. But deep down they know, because it's really really straightforward the consequences of any tool like this.

joefourier 4y ago
Increased efficiency leads to more demand, not less. This is known as the Jevons paradox in economics (see: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox). The historical precedent would be for increased productivity to lead to more software being developed, not the same amount but by fewer developers.
- HervalFreire 4y ago
  Except how did the company go bankrupt then? This paradox only occurs if every resource is abundant. We tend to see it a lot (especially in the last decade) because of the easy money policies by the Fed in the last decade or so. Following your example, if we have unlimited money and gas prices are cheap, we buy more gas. But with limited money, when gas gets cheaper, we don't buy more gas, we usually allocate more money for more essentials. The scenario with a bankruptcy is largely parallel to what we're seeing recently with interest rates and the lay offs. Free money is being tightened. With limited money the paradox no longer functions. Big tech is not going to hire people to write existing software they can get on the open source world, so they let go of a bunch of people. You can literally see the two curves correlate ever since interest rates started to rise... Open source projects are going up right now while lay offs are also increasing... violating the paradox.
  - joefourier 4y ago