3 ms·

not an unfair comparison but i think it's the wrong model. you were always able to buy time by hiring people to do things for you. right now it's agents. i thi

by suriyaG 1mo ago

not an unfair comparison but i think it's the wrong model. you were always able to buy time by hiring people to do things for you. right now it's agents. i think it's an equalizer in that, $200 agent is more accessible than a $10000 human

green_dee 1mo ago
yeah, fair on that point, that makes doing Sloppy SAAS really more accessible and that's what we're seeing On the other hand, what I see happening is: 0. corporation use AI plan ultra-X-high-pro-premium-enterprise 1. corporations firing medium-high paid developers with solid experience and experstise because low-medium paid developers are performing well with ultra-X-high-pro-premium-enterprise plan 2. AI models evolves and now there's a 10X ultra-X-high-pro-premium-enterprise that keeps up the pace 3. low to medium paid are now struggling. The company hires low-paid developers to use more the original AI plan 4. refuses to pay best AI or decrease pressure on developers 5. developers are forced to wake up early, work afterhours and these shenanigans so that they keep up with the pressure 6. corporation pays for the 10X ultra-X-high-pro-premium-enterprise
- eieie1 1mo ago
  I’m a CEO not a dev and this is just patently false. I would never trust someone who lacks the fundamentals to create value even with the most advanced tools. I’d prefer to pay for the senior and fire the less senior - the implicit premium is to not have to worry about the lack of fundamentals for when problems need to be solved that are nuanced.
  - green_dee 1mo ago
    > I would never trust someone who lacks the fundamentals to create value even with the most advanced tools. Although I feel the value of what you're saying, I don't feel that's the mindset in the whole world. I live in a LATAM country and I have worked for both EU (which outsourced most of the workforce, usually keeping the architects and rotating the devs (PS: pre-agentic coding)), US and now US with LATAM intermediator. Every single one of them treated blattantly different less senior and low paid workers. EU treated so well their EU employees that even outsourced workers could actually feel as real human beings. The US (startup) one was extremely crushing, I feel seniors were rewarded, what I take from your "the implicit premium", true, but with so much damn pressure. The only senior I saw departed was out of exhaustion, a team from 10 engineers reduced to 4 or 5, don't remember exactly. While LATAM people is just awful. The slavery mindset is always dormant. Keep pushing, replace when exhausted, hire a whole new crew of low-paid people and push them to burn-out, that's true on small businesses and giant banks. I remember I once trained 3 interns in a pre-agentic setting, I had to push for 2 whole years so that one of the well trained, extremely dedicated and intelligent guy got hired. And he was hired only after a YEAR that the other one had been hired by a larger company. After I was gone, they kept me around consulting just some hours a week and refused to replace even the "half" me. And then I was gone. Only after some months of my departure they really hired the intelligent dude I've mentioned before and for at least a year and a half they coudln't find a replacement for the almost-slave as I was because the intelligent dude probably was starting to get used with agentic coding with a fifth of our total salaries. I haven't heard of that so far.
  - butlike 1mo ago
    There are no nuanced problems
    - ieieie1 1mo ago
      You must be one of the LLM addicts.
lelanthran 1mo ago
> you were always able to buy time by hiring people to do things for you. right now it's agents. i think it's an equalizer in that, $200 agent is more accessible than a $10000 human The other half of this is that, in the past, skill meant that a year of weekends could be turned into a viable business that had skill as a moat. Now, skill means almost nothing: the fleeting product of a drooling idiot is almost indistinguishable from skill and care as long as that drooling idiot has capital. No longer will merit be rewarded; it will be exclusively capital that is rewarded.
- Gud 1mo ago
  Doubtful. These tools will be more useful in capable hands than in the hands of a drooling idiot.
  - bigbadfeline 1mo ago
    > Doubtful. These tools will be more useful in capable hands than in the hands of a drooling idiot. "drooling idiot" is just a figure of speech, I'm sure. The point is, the moat is now more like a narrow puddle which few will be incapable of jumping over. Even if you make something better, it's going to be very hard to find in the pile of AI-generated slop. Ergo, popularity and success will be decided by money for advertisement, not skill. Are there important things that can be done with AI - yes. How many of them can provide income for a small but skilled operation - very few to none at all. That's the reality of it, whatever smart thing you do, AI will catch up with it in the next iteration. The current economic arrangement cannot accommodate AI without degenerating into an idiocracy controlled by selected few.
    - Gud 1mo ago
      I still don’t think you’re right. People can differentiate quality from shit.
      - bossyTeacher 1mo ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons
ieieie1 1mo ago
Another idiot who doesn’t understand capitalism Nobody pays for time. They are paying for a human form of capital.
Havoc 1mo ago
> equalizer in that, $200 agent is more accessible than a $10000 human Yeah that’s valid. Would suggest that there will be a divide but perhaps at a lower wealth point.
- a123b456c 1mo ago
  What about $10000 human with many $200 agents?

by suriyaG 1mo ago

green_dee 1mo ago

yeah, fair on that point, that makes doing Sloppy SAAS really more accessible and that's what we're seeing On the other hand, what I see happening is: 0. corporation use AI plan ultra-X-high-pro-premium-enterprise 1. corporations firing medium-high paid developers with solid experience and experstise because low-medium paid developers are performing well with ultra-X-high-pro-premium-enterprise plan 2. AI models evolves and now there's a 10X ultra-X-high-pro-premium-enterprise that keeps up the pace 3. low to medium paid are now struggling. The company hires low-paid developers to use more the original AI plan 4. refuses to pay best AI or decrease pressure on developers 5. developers are forced to wake up early, work afterhours and these shenanigans so that they keep up with the pressure 6. corporation pays for the 10X ultra-X-high-pro-premium-enterprise

eieie1 1mo ago
I’m a CEO not a dev and this is just patently false. I would never trust someone who lacks the fundamentals to create value even with the most advanced tools. I’d prefer to pay for the senior and fire the less senior - the implicit premium is to not have to worry about the lack of fundamentals for when problems need to be solved that are nuanced.
- green_dee 1mo ago
  > I would never trust someone who lacks the fundamentals to create value even with the most advanced tools. Although I feel the value of what you're saying, I don't feel that's the mindset in the whole world. I live in a LATAM country and I have worked for both EU (which outsourced most of the workforce, usually keeping the architects and rotating the devs (PS: pre-agentic coding)), US and now US with LATAM intermediator. Every single one of them treated blattantly different less senior and low paid workers. EU treated so well their EU employees that even outsourced workers could actually feel as real human beings. The US (startup) one was extremely crushing, I feel seniors were rewarded, what I take from your "the implicit premium", true, but with so much damn pressure. The only senior I saw departed was out of exhaustion, a team from 10 engineers reduced to 4 or 5, don't remember exactly. While LATAM people is just awful. The slavery mindset is always dormant. Keep pushing, replace when exhausted, hire a whole new crew of low-paid people and push them to burn-out, that's true on small businesses and giant banks. I remember I once trained 3 interns in a pre-agentic setting, I had to push for 2 whole years so that one of the well trained, extremely dedicated and intelligent guy got hired. And he was hired only after a YEAR that the other one had been hired by a larger company. After I was gone, they kept me around consulting just some hours a week and refused to replace even the "half" me. And then I was gone. Only after some months of my departure they really hired the intelligent dude I've mentioned before and for at least a year and a half they coudln't find a replacement for the almost-slave as I was because the intelligent dude probably was starting to get used with agentic coding with a fifth of our total salaries. I haven't heard of that so far.
- butlike 1mo ago
  There are no nuanced problems
  - ieieie1 1mo ago
    You must be one of the LLM addicts.

lelanthran 1mo ago

> you were always able to buy time by hiring people to do things for you. right now it's agents. i think it's an equalizer in that, $200 agent is more accessible than a $10000 human The other half of this is that, in the past, skill meant that a year of weekends could be turned into a viable business that had skill as a moat. Now, skill means almost nothing: the fleeting product of a drooling idiot is almost indistinguishable from skill and care as long as that drooling idiot has capital. No longer will merit be rewarded; it will be exclusively capital that is rewarded.

Gud 1mo ago
Doubtful. These tools will be more useful in capable hands than in the hands of a drooling idiot.
- bigbadfeline 1mo ago
  > Doubtful. These tools will be more useful in capable hands than in the hands of a drooling idiot. "drooling idiot" is just a figure of speech, I'm sure. The point is, the moat is now more like a narrow puddle which few will be incapable of jumping over. Even if you make something better, it's going to be very hard to find in the pile of AI-generated slop. Ergo, popularity and success will be decided by money for advertisement, not skill. Are there important things that can be done with AI - yes. How many of them can provide income for a small but skilled operation - very few to none at all. That's the reality of it, whatever smart thing you do, AI will catch up with it in the next iteration. The current economic arrangement cannot accommodate AI without degenerating into an idiocracy controlled by selected few.
  - Gud 1mo ago
    I still don’t think you’re right. People can differentiate quality from shit.
    - bossyTeacher 1mo ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons

ieieie1 1mo ago

Another idiot who doesn’t understand capitalism Nobody pays for time. They are paying for a human form of capital.

Havoc 1mo ago

> equalizer in that, $200 agent is more accessible than a $10000 human Yeah that’s valid. Would suggest that there will be a divide but perhaps at a lower wealth point.

a123b456c 1mo ago
What about $10000 human with many $200 agents?