3 ms·

I found this post a bit too verbose and incoherent. It does read like AI slop to me, but the bigger issue is that its core argument itself seems flawed. The au

by anupamk 2mo ago

I found this post a bit too verbose and incoherent. It does read like AI slop to me, but the bigger issue is that its core argument itself seems flawed. The author seems to be advocating for choosing to "carry the burden" of one's taste (or aesthetics, judgement, standards, etc) while bemoaning that the market may not sufficiently reward for doing so. IMHO, the core flaw is in mixing these two things 1) the market rewarding what it chooses to reward; and 2) individuals choosing to pursue some external/internal rewards. I broadly agree with the premise that Gen AI has lowered the cost of software development and, as a result, the quality of the idea and its execution have become more salient differentiators than just the ability to bring an idea to reality. I also agree that pursuing one's own sense of taste/judgment or "objective function" is often intrinsically rewarding and worth it. But ultimately, an individual has to decide how much they want to (or need to) play for the external market rewards vs their own intrinsic rewards/motivations. But I don't think it's coherent to argue that the market "ought to" reward one for their oh-so-special but mysterious, amorphous, and unmeasurable way of doing things, or that pursuing one's own taste/judgement is somehow automatically an exercise in greatness.

strken 2mo ago
I think there's a coherent argument lurking in there, but the author hasn't refined it enough. Here's my attempt. The industrial revolution seemed like the end of the artisan as an important man in his community, the death of good taste, and an apocalypse for professions like furniture makers. And yet, do you remember the Aeron chair, darling of the dotcom era startup? The Eames chair, that wood veneer conversation piece which every real estate agent chooses when staging an apartment? In an era of mass production, taste moves up the market, but it never quite goes away. Where does that leave our taste, dear reader? I am not sure. What I do know is that, just as the Aeron chair could not exist in a world without mass production, so too will there be tasteful software which cannot exist in a world without LLMs. I hope you're as excited as I am to build it. I have no idea whether this was the actual intent, but it's where the disparate little facts seem like they might lead.
- anupamk 2mo ago
  > In an era of mass production, taste moves up the market, but it never quite goes away. I agree with the points in your version, and the part above is the “meat and potatoes” for me. I too am unsure about how much did the author intend to say something similar. The main area where I disagree with the original post is this apparent fusing of subjective/personal taste driven value and market rewards driven value. To summarize/clarify my view using the Aeron and Eames chair examples from your version 1. I agree that someone had to pursue their taste/vision for those products even when they could’ve “gotten away” with producing something mass produced and mediocre. And that pursuing their taste/vision likely became more feasible once the technology allowed them to focus on the “taste” while taking care of the boilerplate. 2. But, I will also add that the market actually saw value in Aeron and Eames chairs and rewarded their creators. It would’ve been incongruent for those creators to assert that their chairs were superior merely because they chose to pursue their taste/vision.

by anupamk 2mo ago

strken 2mo ago

I think there's a coherent argument lurking in there, but the author hasn't refined it enough. Here's my attempt. The industrial revolution seemed like the end of the artisan as an important man in his community, the death of good taste, and an apocalypse for professions like furniture makers. And yet, do you remember the Aeron chair, darling of the dotcom era startup? The Eames chair, that wood veneer conversation piece which every real estate agent chooses when staging an apartment? In an era of mass production, taste moves up the market, but it never quite goes away. Where does that leave our taste, dear reader? I am not sure. What I do know is that, just as the Aeron chair could not exist in a world without mass production, so too will there be tasteful software which cannot exist in a world without LLMs. I hope you're as excited as I am to build it. I have no idea whether this was the actual intent, but it's where the disparate little facts seem like they might lead.

anupamk 2mo ago
> In an era of mass production, taste moves up the market, but it never quite goes away. I agree with the points in your version, and the part above is the “meat and potatoes” for me. I too am unsure about how much did the author intend to say something similar. The main area where I disagree with the original post is this apparent fusing of subjective/personal taste driven value and market rewards driven value. To summarize/clarify my view using the Aeron and Eames chair examples from your version 1. I agree that someone had to pursue their taste/vision for those products even when they could’ve “gotten away” with producing something mass produced and mediocre. And that pursuing their taste/vision likely became more feasible once the technology allowed them to focus on the “taste” while taking care of the boilerplate. 2. But, I will also add that the market actually saw value in Aeron and Eames chairs and rewarded their creators. It would’ve been incongruent for those creators to assert that their chairs were superior merely because they chose to pursue their taste/vision.