> Blindly adopting AI is unlikely to be fruitful. Enterprises should instead experiment with and evaluate AI through operational metrics on the systems they are accountable to build and operate.
That is not any better than "blindly adopting AI", you're starting with the tech and trying to shoehorn it in your solution, this is an old well-known anti-pattern that applies to any kind of tech stack when it comes to designing a product as your main objective.
I would like to offer a counterexample: iPhone, when it first came out anyways. Tasteful design is rather so obvious that when you see it you'd say yes, this is what anyone would expect from a "phone". That doesn't seem to be so subjective.
That was not at all the universal response to the iphone. http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=iphone is a (nsfw) contemporary article that I agreed with at the time, and I knew a decent number of people who got an early iphone and then switched back to a blackberry.
Well some people are stubborn but most do the switch to better designed items. So its not really subjective, the initial knee jerk reaction is but the more reasoned response after a few years isn't very subjective.
> When I began in software in the 1980s I was dismissed as an “object guy” by database folks and as a “data modeler” by object folks. I've since been dismissed as a “patterns guy”, “agile guy”, “architecture guy”, “java guy”, “ruby guy”, and “anti-architect guy”. I'm now a past-it gray-beard surviving on drinking the intellectual blood of my younger colleagues. It's tasty.
I don't think you can find that level of ego anywhere in the software industry or any other industry for that matter. Respetc.
It's weird that here on HN some people are trying to break free from Google and Apple and on the other side some people are married to Gemini, and both look like to be the majority at times.
> Listen: every idea you've ever had, every single one, some cocaine-addled sales critter has had too.
You can test this, if you talk about your idea to three people and one of them says we're already doing that and the other two think you're insane, you'd be safe.
While it's difficult to define, wisely can turn 'LLMs are useless' to 'ten X productivity boost'. However, at the end, of course, it all comes down to products. Before LLMs stole the show, we had built beautiful system software over the course of decades, linux, git, k8s and rust and yet the products that we use everyday are mostly (mostly) user-hostile and incorporate dark patterns, offer a suboptimal UX, and (in my opinion) sometimes involve outright inhuman marketing practices. That being said, even if you get AGI I don't think it will lead to any breakthroughs if we continue to do 'software engineering' like this year after year.
Agreed. I am starting to think that the only sane way to approach most of it is to learn enough to be able implement as much as possible yourself. It.. can suck hard, because you will spend a lot of time learning what true control really means, but in exchange you get exactly what you want and how you want it.
And this sucks, because I don't think I could reasonably apply this to anything else like cars..
That is not any better than "blindly adopting AI", you're starting with the tech and trying to shoehorn it in your solution, this is an old well-known anti-pattern that applies to any kind of tech stack when it comes to designing a product as your main objective.
reply