If models are getting exponentially cheaper and more powerful, going all in a year ago is kind of insane. There's ostensibly this reverse token value inflation where whatever you spend on AI today, you'll get much more for the same dollar tomorrow (assuming models get cheaper and better). There's really a weird sort of late mover's advantage to just holding off and saving your money unless you expect your profit to grow faster than AI becomes more powerful.

Yeah this is what happens when you think code is the product. It's really the understanding and also the design of the software that is the "engine" of value, and the problem is that it's hard to justify spending money to build something that is intangible and might be visible in the future.

When non-technical people call the shots, they will rarely bet on spending time and effort on designing things properly because they can't see the value and it's hard to communicate and convince others of its business value.

Just do what management wants and take the bag of money. That's all everyone is doing up the chain anyways.

Pangram said the op post is 100% AI generated.

It does seem to have ai pacing and ends with a question.

> The part that actually hurts is who is left.

That line actually made me suspicious. Op doesn't respond, also has a hidden profile.

This stuff is all over reddit now.

> Except half of us haven't written anything non trivial in a year and it shows. I spent 2 days on something I would have done in an afternoon in 2024.

This is the part that bugs me with AI usage is that it drives the use of it to benefit the company but not the individual. Yes AI allows me to be faster as work (in theory), but as a result I lose out in my own learning as an employee, I lose out in my own cognitive ability to learn, make mistakes and build upon my knowledge and skills.