// do the thing
doThing()
dotted everywhere, I am very much over it.[0] Most of the new EE Grads I see go into software engineering.
Many think writing software is engineering, but it couldn't be further from the truth.
This would increase the rigor of software engineering and put it on par with civil engineering.
Some niches like real-time embedded systems are already pretty much the same.
[1] https://martin.kleppmann.com/2025/12/08/ai-formal-verificati...
I mean some real-time software for critical embedded systems has an incredible level of rigor, making heavy use of static analysis, model checking, and theorem proving.
That's the difference between the original "free software" community and the "open source" one to me, including its modern incarnation on GitHub: the former produces a collaborative effort to develop a UNIX replacement/alternative and a thriving ecosystem around free software desktop environments with apps intended for humans to do their personal computing. The latter gets you Apache Kafka.
You get it. It’s about value. Keep you eye on that north star and you won’t go wrong.
Whose value? How do I value? Can I reconcile disparite value? Yep, those are the right questions.
For me, I read this and want to give a shout out to Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, but that’s just me.
I enjoyed the read, thank you.
I think that humans are the ultimate arbiters of quality for humans.
Nothing that is non-human can make that determination because anything that is not human (an LLM) is at best just a really good model. Since all models are necessarily wrong by definition, they can never get it right all the time. When determining what’s good for humans, it is only us that can figure that out.
I also came back to ZAMM when wrestling this question. There must be something there if we have all independently coming to similar conclusions.
As an aside, this is a true meme.
As for the other side of things, there is one thing that gives me a mild twinge of envy: I grew up on the command-line and when I write on it, I can knock out a full bash pipeline literally at the command-line super-fast. Many of my friends are far better engineers, but this one thing makes me great at any sort of debugging and all that. Now everyone has that! I'm USELESS.
Well, not really, but it's funny that this unique skill is meaningless. Overall, I've found that AI stuff has let me do more and more things. Instead of thinking, at the end of the week, "Oh man, I wish I'd made progress on my side project" I think "Damn, that wasn't such a good idea after all" which is honestly far more satisfying!
0: https://wiki.roshangeorge.dev/w/Blog/2025-10-17/Custom_GPTs
I see something very different:
1. The government post shared as an example of efficiency to utility increase has glaring errors: “journey-level developers”. You will never achieve any improvement on government code bases if the people leading the effort can’t pay attention to the most basic and broadcasted elements of the job. AI used by junior developers will only compound the massive complexity of government systems to the point where they are not fixable by seniors and they are not usable by humans.
2. The time spent doing something, meaningful or not, with care is a training for that person into attention to detail, which is absolutely critical to getting things right. People who lazily lean on generating more without attention to detail, don’t see the real point of the work - it’s not to add more stuff to less space (physical or mental) faster. It’s to make the existing space better and bigger by needing less in it. The rest is just mental and physical complexity overload. We are about to drawn in that overload like hoarders next to a dumpster.
3. If you ever live in a small home you may noticed that the joy of getting things (usually derived from dopamine-seeking behaviors like shopping or making, or shopping for ingredients so you can make things, or from getting toys for your kids or other people getting toys for your kids) will quickly overload any space in your living quarters. Your house becomes unbearably small and it becomes impossible to find things in piles or drawers filled with other things if nobody ever organizes them. We all have become dopamine adduces or the world has turned us into such and there are few if any humans willing and capable of organizing that world. So most people today will be paralyzed with a million choices that were never organized or pruned down by the owner or their predecessors. The overwhelming feeling would be to escape the dread of organization into more dopamine- generating behaviors. We need more of the “moms” who clean up our rooms after we’ve had fun with all the legos we can now generate. Or we will all be living in a dumpster before too long.
Meaning for the brother is one thing, but as a potential watcher, I would almost always prefer a movie that someone really cared about^^.
^: depending on the definition of "better"
^^: as a fallible human being I am not perfect at detecting that care, but there had definitely been cases in my life when someone was talking about a thing that I would not really care about otherwise, but their passion made the talk extremely interesting and memorable
I'm a good engineer because I've written tons of code, I've taken no shortcuts, and I've focused on improving over my many iterations. This has enabled me to be an effective steward of generative coding (etc) models, but will younger engineers ever get the reps necessary to get where I am? Are there other ways to get this knowledge and taste? Does anyone know or care?
We're in the anthropocene now, and while probably everyone who knows what that is understands we have the largest effect on the Earth, it also means we now also have the largest effect on ourselves. We're so, so bad at taking this seriously. We can unleash technology that idiocracies western civilization inside of a generation, I know this because we keep lunging towards it with ever increasing success. But we can't just shamble around and let Darwin awards sort things out. We have nukes and virology labs, not to mention a climate change crisis to deal with. If the US political system falls apart because Americans under 65 spend between 2-3 hours on social media a day, that's a failed state with a lot of firepower to shoot around haphazardly.
And why do we keep building things that enfeeble us? Did we need easier access to delivery food and car rides, or did we need easier access to nutritious food and more walkable neighborhoods? Did we need social media with effectively no protections against propaganda/misinformation? We know that cognitive ability and executive function decline with LLM use. Can it really be that we think we're actually too smart and we need to turn it down a notch?
There are actual problems to solve, and important software to write. Neither algorithmic feeds nor advertising platforms fall under those categories. LLMs are supposed to solve the problem of "not enough software"--Nystrom points at this explicitly with the Washington Department of Ecology ad. But we never had a "not enough software problem", rather we had a "not enough beneficial software" problem, i.e. we'd be in a way better place if our best minds weren't working on getting more eyeballs on more ads or getting the AI to stop undressing kids.
Generative AI isn't empowering us. We don't have people building their own OSes, (real, working) browsers, word processors and spreadsheet programs, their own DAWs or guitar amp modelers, their own Illustrators or Figmas. Instead you have companies squeezing their workers and contractors, while their products enshittify. You can't even run these things without some megacorp's say so, and how are you gonna buy time on the H100 farm when AI took your job?
I'm too tired to write a conclusion. I'm pretty sure we're fucked. But hey look, the cars drive themselves.
I think this will be a problem in the middle term, and I've written about such deskilling before [0]. With the latest crop of foundational coding models and harnesses, and more progress on the way, I'm beginning to wonder if it will matter? If there's a future where agents are designing the code, implementing the code, and reading and reviewing the code... At that point the code is no longer the thing. "Software engineers" will continue to sit at the interface of product and software, but the software will be writing itself. Of course there will be a need for programmers who can actually read and write computer code, the same way there's a need for Fortran and compiler devs today.
The skill that all software engineers will need to learn, regardless of level, is how to leverage commoditized reasoning to build products effectively.
- how to design systems declaratively and in terms of requirements and constraints - how to configure the systems in such a way that they're automatically testable end-to-end - how to move tacit knowledge out of people's heads and into the context - all of our meetings will be transcribed - questions _from the agent_ will be generated during the meeting resolve ambiguity - the agent will be an omnipresent attendee in all meetings. "Ding The topic you're discussing overlaps with what Sally said three days ago when she met with Mike. They covered xyz..." - companies that follow remote work best practices will have an advantage here - how to allocate and orchestrate teams of people and agents
To offer a view which is, well, a different flavor of pessimism: The good news is that we aren't enfeebling ourselves, the bad news is many humans are being enfeebled by a smaller group of humans as a form of economic predation.