For those interested in brain evolution and practical neuroscience/human behavior:
Carl Sagan's books "Broca's Brain" and "The Dragons of Eden" from the 70's-80's are good initial reads on brain composition and evolution. The Sapolsky lectures and books are also great resources.
The comments in the other post on this topic had an article which slammed Sagan's book for being outdated and espousing debunked triune Brian theory. The article was called "your brain is not an onion with a lizard inside".
So here is an excellent example and interesting race condition that is developing in AI applications and venture-backed startups: what is truly AI-resilient enough to invest millions of dollars in a "land grab"--when the land is literally falling away with each passing day.
There is no doubt that AI will be helping to run businesses. But, there is also little doubt that existing businesses will have the wherewithal to develop the proprietary tools they need to do this work--without needing to buy it from others.
With respect to scope, it is not an overstatement to say that developing trust in AI tools enough to allow them free reign over critical business workflows may be a bridge too far. Look at self-driving car technology--that last 10% is really, really hard. So adoption will be slow and methodical.
There are no secrets. The basic model for starting and running a business (or a project) is straightforward. I like many of you have developed my own models (using AI assistance) for doing this and have been testing for months. And I like many of you have 30+ years of small business experience to back up my models.
This says nothing about the R&D happening at every major corporate & professional software services company in the world right now using the same AI tools to build their own solutions--let alone the enterprises who would be customers doing exactly the same thing.
So there is an enormous amount of competition and what I am calling a "race condition" between the crowd trying to disrupt professional services with AI-developed software and the crowd already in professional services software e.g. SAP and business in general that is doing the exact same thing--with more capable tools, more staff and much more R&D funding.
For the big companies, it's a race to survive.
Investors in startups have a tough decision to make on these small startups that have so little moat and so little prior knowledge and experience.
As an angel investor myself, I am skeptical of investing in any kind of software right now--and maybe forever.
On the plus side, every freelancer now has the power (and responsibility) to optimize their own offerings.
There is one big wrinkle in existing firms trying to adopt the kind of near-full AI business automation mentioned here: internal people and groups will strongly resist it as it's an existential threat to their interests. See what happened at Meta as an example.
To bypass this, the company would pretty much have to run a parallel AI org alongside their main human one, but at that point they are almost on even footing with startups in a lot of ways, as anything the AI org builds is orthogonal to the existing human business. And you probably won't have a competent and extremely motivated founder spearheading it all.
Look, folks. I'm an old man and pretty much out of the workforce at this point in my life. But what I see in these comments day, after day is rather pitiful. As your Uncle John, I'm going to give you a lecture:
From the article:
>I can’t really blame anyone who’s just gone along with things
Whst is this supposed to mean "blame"? Do you "blame" people for driving cars instead of riding horses? Do you "blame" software engineers for eliminating entire industries?
Folks, writing software can be fun and satisfying. Do it for the enjoyment. But suck it up, because the technology wave you rode to a well-paying job was always going to be short-lived for the majority of programmers.
Just like the engineers who built steam engines, or living room radios, or tube TV's, or Internet dial-up modems and long distance phone networks, or whatever other technology that has come and gone: just move on, because you helped to put those people out of work--and they moved on.
You're going to drive yourselves crazy with the constant re-hashing and sobbing over the obvious changes that are happening. Figure out how you go forward and start going forward.
“Just suck it up” coming from a person who doesn’t have to deal with the consequences has to be the least convincing take on the situation I’ve heard by far. So congrats on that.
To offer a perspective from someone in the field: I built my career as a craftsman. Not just my livelihood, but my family’s livelihood depended on this craft. And within a few short months, my value has plummeted. I’ve tried to adapt, but I will never be as good with the newer tools as I was with the old, just like most carriage makers didn’t become mechanics, to use your analogy. At the same time, the value of the work is just less. Weavers could work in fabric mills, but their pay would be less. Now, just like back then, I, my wife, and my two young children face a financial reforming just beyond the horizon. It will be painful for many. There is no amount of adaptation that is within grasp of all those affected.
I think the general problem with your argument is that you assume that, because there was a transition from horses to cars, many people successfully transitioned from one profession to the other. The reality is that they didn’t. Many suffered in anonymity.
Yeah, you and me both. Look at it on the long scale of history, change is a constant. Everything is impermanent. It’s not our choice to have this forced upon us, but it’s our choice as to how we adapt. Or not.
Personally, I’m choosing to be mentally flexible. I don’t want to embrace fear, fear is the mind killer.
You can probably do a whole lot of things to make money. I’ve only ever made software, so this is a real kick in the arse, but so be it. Time to pay attention and see where this story goes.
Yeah but horses to cars is insignificant compared to an AI that is going to swallow us all. We don't even have time to make new career choices because AI will catch up faster than we can think.
Agreed . I told my partner about a year ago "I have to figure out how to love this AI thing because it's a part of life now, even if I stop working with computers". And admitting that maybe I'm not being as open as I should be about it was the first step.
I see it like cloud computing. We were told infrastructure engineers wouldn't be necessary and anyone could build at scale now and blah blah. Instead we got Terraform and solid practices for infrastructure as code and moved beyond having to email some dude to get a new VPS or dedicated server spun up and making trips to the colo. It just changed the possibilities of what we could build.
I've been treating AI the same way and just leveled up what I build now and my ambition. It has helped a great deal with being okay with AI. All those fun insane projects in my head that I never figured would happen because "it would take a full team months to code that" are realistically possible. Big things that used to be entire companies are now possible. You hate Google search now? Guess what, you can make your own!
I don't treat my side projects purely as an "end goal" anymore but as a learning experience now. I slow down and actually read the code. These are my own projects. Then I take these things I learn to work and apply them. That's how it's always been when new tech comes along. I also hated kubernetes when it first came, but have now settled into "it has it's place". I learned about myself a bit and that I should be a little more open to change if for no other reason than peace of mind.
Just cause something has already happened many times to other people doesn't mean it's not special or interesting when it happens to you. It's been extraordinary seeing this unfold before me.
And I think it's worth noting that the novel thing about what's happening now is that, unlike before, when physical labor was devalued and commodified, we are now seeing intellectual labor, even at its highest levels, suffering the same fate.
In my domain, we call it "selling out". It's not blameless, but for people who function in modern society we all likely have done similar things. So it's hard to blame them.
>the technology wave you rode to a well-paying job was always going to be short-lived for the majority of programmers.
Sounds easy to say when your context is "I'm an old man and pretty much out of the workforce at this point in my life.". If I could just turn programming into a hobby today and retool myself into, say, an accountant in a year I would not be anywhere near as bitter.
But no. Instead it's more like you're falling through the cracks of society and will be unable to ever reach your status. some circles are calling this the "permanent underclass". People don't tend to react well to doing what they were told to do and then having rewards yanked from them in real time.
Can you chill Uncle John? It’s ok to have feelings, you know. And this post was literally about how the author is figuring out how to go forward, in their own way.
Hard to do when adapting/innovating means essentially joining the Borg. People have a million analogies to what is happening with AI right now but they often fail to see how unprecedented it is. Is history really just repeating? Are we in a cycle? Or is this just a paperclip optimizer?
I came here to write something similar but not as forceful. Your comment is far better than might ever have the guts or wherewithal to express. I build things with the tools I have. I also repair the ancient wood windows at my house with an assortment of POWER tools, like a router and table saw.
AI is my coding power tool. I'm building stuff for humans, just faster now. It's amazing.
Not much discussion here, but this is a good observation about not just incorporating something like creativity into your life, but how much emphasis we all put on incorporating pleasure into our work lives. That transition happened sometime in the 80's.
I'll step up to the mic and give my opinion:
There was a time when most jobs were physically demanding in one way or another. Working on a factory production line doesn't allow much opportunity for adding creativity into your work. The answer: avocations.
My dad was a machinist--which can be a very creative job--but he always preached to me the need to have activities (creative or otherwise) outside of work. He played music, built projects in the garage, and played around with drawing and painting at home.
We are likely transitioning away (once again) from a majority of jobs that include opportunities for creativity to a majority of jobs that are just plain "work." So it's a good idea to remember that time outside of work can be the opportunity to be creative.
I can hear the comments already about no time outside of work: family, commute, etc. But remember, if you want something bad enough, you will make time for it.
I'm just as likely to neglect this fact as anyone else: we only get one chance to live. If it’s important, then make time for it.
How much time do the majority of people spend scrolling on their phones?
I tend to think that i don’t have time to do the things i want to do outside of work, but on the rare occasions when i managed to put my phone aside for a couple of weeks I find I have more time than i know what to do with.
Everyone’s situation is different obviously, but personally “I don’t have time” is completely untrue
>> If it’s important, then make time for it.
Indeed. Replace the sentence "I don't have time for this" with "This does not have priority for me."
This will make it easier to decide if you are going to read your kids a bedtime story or if your going to finish that report.
Working on a factory production line is just a blip in the history of humanity and creativity.
No offense to your dad, but I wouldn't try to draw any conclusions on how we are meant to find self-actualization in our careers based off a very recent, and actually very inhuman mode of industrial production where people are expected to operate as indefatigable machines.
Kinnaman, Thomas C. "Determining the Socially Optimal Recycling Rate." Resources, Conservation and Recycling, vol. 85, 2014, pp. 5–10, doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.11.002.
I volunteer mentor at the Rady School Sullivan Center at UCSD. It's a very good program that offers no-credit "learn by doing" programs that pairs entrepreneurial-minded students with technology startups. Everybody wins.
The most important lessons for students include: realistic expectations, a new vocabulary, and a real-world understanding of the complexities of building a startup.
I've worked at other universities where startups are treated more like sports to get interest and social media attention: competitions, events, socializing, etc. Those are nice things, but they are superficial in my opinion.
My advice for students would be to find opportunities to get in the trenches and experience the challenges and hardships faced by founders--those are the most important lessons.
Wow, this is important. This experiment needs to be duplicated (by many different people) and then we will know more. Right now I'm wary of buying SanDisk cards...
Carl Sagan's books "Broca's Brain" and "The Dragons of Eden" from the 70's-80's are good initial reads on brain composition and evolution. The Sapolsky lectures and books are also great resources.
reply