4 ms·

He's not denying that there is demand, he just has a different view on what's happening: When developers say that LLMs make them more productive, you need to k

by andor 5mo ago

He's not denying that there is demand, he just has a different view on what's happening: When developers say that LLMs make them more productive, you need to keep in mind that this is what they’re automating: dysfunction, tampering as a design strategy, superstition-driven coding, and software whose quality genuinely doesn’t matter, all in an environment where rigour is completely absent. They are right. LLMs make work that doesn’t matter easier – it’s all monopolies, subscriptions, VCs, and lock-in anyway – in an industry that doesn’t care, where the only thing that’s measured is some bullshit productivity measure that’s completely disconnected from outcomes. ... One group thinks this will make the world ten times richer. The other thinks it’ll be a catastrophe. (from an earlier post, https://www.baldurbjarnason.com/2026/the-two-worlds-of-programming/ https://www.baldurbjarnason.com/2026/the-two-worlds-of-progr...)

vanuatu 5mo ago
Reasonable conclusion, if you think the entire software industry is rotten then accelerating rot won't do much I personally disagree with that worldview. (I read the article and the guy's tone is lowkey salty) The reality is it's insanely hard to convince people (/especially/ consumers. //especially// technical consumers) to pay up to use software. Anyone who has tried to sell software as a startup knows, customers are laser focused on outcomes and value and anything that raises an eyebrow means you're toast Ofc there are perverse incentives and I think those are bad
- bluefirebrand 5mo ago
  > Anyone who has tried to sell software as a startup knows, customers are laser focused on outcomes and value So the solution is to reduce the cost to zero, instead of competing to provide the best outcome and highest value?
  - vanuatu 5mo ago
    If you've ever tried to start your own company in the US it's a grueling, insane warzone of competition That results in the winners providing insane value to both customers and equity holders
- agumonkey 5mo ago
  I wonder if this is a sign of bad value. Long ago you'd be willing to pay. The relationship was clearer , simpler, stabler. No sudden change of price or rules, no constant false improvement. It was less flexible, and riskier on a way, but it cleaned the noise. My 2cts
  - 48terry 5mo ago
    I mean software as a customer/user is by and large completely miserable anymore. People don't like spending money on yet another Solution that will screw them over then shut down, screwing them over again regarding whatever they were using it for. Look at the reactions and expectations when Beloved Name gets bought by private equity, or how people count down the days until Useful Service starts enshittification and becomes terrible. People have been trained to leapfrog from service to service while watching for signs of rot because nobody makes software or has long-term plans that actually care about the customer's long-term well being anymore. If Founder McSynergy can make an extra dollar by throwing the entire userbase into a volcano, well, that's just a sacrifice he's willing to make.
- SlinkyOnStairs 5mo ago
  > The reality is it's insanely hard to convince people (/especially/ consumers. //especially// technical consumers) to pay up to use software. The industry is in an extremely bimodal situation, which drives most of that rot. You have the startups and small businesses who can't get businesses or customers to pay up. And you have the SaaS giants, who already have their customers and can charge whatever they want. And this is where the "rotten software industry" and doubts about AI feasibility intersect: Both of these business archetypes lack a clear use case for AI. If you're small, congratulations you can now spend thousands a month on tokens and still have $0 of revenue. AI doesn't really help you "catch up" to customer expectations as now you're also having to compete with the myriad of slop-shops and in-house AI software development. If you're a giant, well... why bother? Why give OpenAI or Anthropic a million dollars in tokens? They don't need to make the software better nor do need any "AI efficiency" to do layoffs.
  - vanuatu 5mo ago
    I'm curious as to where your perspective comes from. My view is they both have a clear use case for AI, because every business has a use case for more intelligence on tap. Enterprises big and small already shell out billions upon billions for AI so I'm not sure how your premise holds In fact AI has resulted in more startups than ever starting to take market share from the incumbent software companies (and the market has started to price that in)
    - bigstrat2003 5mo ago
      Every business has a use case for more intelligence on tap, but it is abundantly clear that LLMs are not in any way intelligent. They still frequently make egregious errors in what they do, because they are just token predictors with no intelligence or understanding of what they are doing. Yes, even the state of the art frontier models. This in turn means you have to either baby sit them, or accept a much higher rate of failures than a human would produce. Either option kills any potential productivity gains.
    - bigyabai 5mo ago
      > Enterprises big and small already shell out billions upon billions for AI so I'm not sure how your premise holds By your logic, shouldn't these enterprise's cash flow be expanding due to AI instead of shrinking?

by andor 5mo ago

vanuatu 5mo ago

Reasonable conclusion, if you think the entire software industry is rotten then accelerating rot won't do much I personally disagree with that worldview. (I read the article and the guy's tone is lowkey salty) The reality is it's insanely hard to convince people (/especially/ consumers. //especially// technical consumers) to pay up to use software. Anyone who has tried to sell software as a startup knows, customers are laser focused on outcomes and value and anything that raises an eyebrow means you're toast Ofc there are perverse incentives and I think those are bad

bluefirebrand 5mo ago
> Anyone who has tried to sell software as a startup knows, customers are laser focused on outcomes and value So the solution is to reduce the cost to zero, instead of competing to provide the best outcome and highest value?
- vanuatu 5mo ago
  If you've ever tried to start your own company in the US it's a grueling, insane warzone of competition That results in the winners providing insane value to both customers and equity holders
agumonkey 5mo ago
I wonder if this is a sign of bad value. Long ago you'd be willing to pay. The relationship was clearer , simpler, stabler. No sudden change of price or rules, no constant false improvement. It was less flexible, and riskier on a way, but it cleaned the noise. My 2cts
- 48terry 5mo ago
  I mean software as a customer/user is by and large completely miserable anymore. People don't like spending money on yet another Solution that will screw them over then shut down, screwing them over again regarding whatever they were using it for. Look at the reactions and expectations when Beloved Name gets bought by private equity, or how people count down the days until Useful Service starts enshittification and becomes terrible. People have been trained to leapfrog from service to service while watching for signs of rot because nobody makes software or has long-term plans that actually care about the customer's long-term well being anymore. If Founder McSynergy can make an extra dollar by throwing the entire userbase into a volcano, well, that's just a sacrifice he's willing to make.
SlinkyOnStairs 5mo ago
> The reality is it's insanely hard to convince people (/especially/ consumers. //especially// technical consumers) to pay up to use software. The industry is in an extremely bimodal situation, which drives most of that rot. You have the startups and small businesses who can't get businesses or customers to pay up. And you have the SaaS giants, who already have their customers and can charge whatever they want. And this is where the "rotten software industry" and doubts about AI feasibility intersect: Both of these business archetypes lack a clear use case for AI. If you're small, congratulations you can now spend thousands a month on tokens and still have $0 of revenue. AI doesn't really help you "catch up" to customer expectations as now you're also having to compete with the myriad of slop-shops and in-house AI software development. If you're a giant, well... why bother? Why give OpenAI or Anthropic a million dollars in tokens? They don't need to make the software better nor do need any "AI efficiency" to do layoffs.
- vanuatu 5mo ago
  I'm curious as to where your perspective comes from. My view is they both have a clear use case for AI, because every business has a use case for more intelligence on tap. Enterprises big and small already shell out billions upon billions for AI so I'm not sure how your premise holds In fact AI has resulted in more startups than ever starting to take market share from the incumbent software companies (and the market has started to price that in)
  - bigstrat2003 5mo ago
    Every business has a use case for more intelligence on tap, but it is abundantly clear that LLMs are not in any way intelligent. They still frequently make egregious errors in what they do, because they are just token predictors with no intelligence or understanding of what they are doing. Yes, even the state of the art frontier models. This in turn means you have to either baby sit them, or accept a much higher rate of failures than a human would produce. Either option kills any potential productivity gains.
  - bigyabai 5mo ago
    > Enterprises big and small already shell out billions upon billions for AI so I'm not sure how your premise holds By your logic, shouldn't these enterprise's cash flow be expanding due to AI instead of shrinking?