One is supposed to grow out of caring about the result. A master at their craft creates masterpieces because day in, day out they sit at their desk and create. When they're sad, they sit down and create. If you love the process, you keep at doing something; doing something repeatedly is how you become a master.
If you want to go spiritual, there's karma yoga from the Bhagavad Gita: "You have a right to perform your prescribed duties, but you are not entitled to the fruits of your actions. Never consider yourself to be the cause of the results of your activities, nor be attached to inaction."
Did Leonardo work for fame and monies, or simply because he found massive enjoyment in it? What about Hemingway, or Einstein?
This might all sound like new age bullshit, but it's taken me literally 15 years of my life to understand this and grow out of chronic procrastination and dissatisfaction.
most of today's problem's in this field is because upper management got swindled into thinking that the process doesn't matter, as long as something comes out the other end. Doesn't need to work properly.
But this shitty state of software nowadays is mostly due to only caring about the result and not the process.
To be clear: this existed even before AI, and also led to the proliferation of electron and its ilk.
Not really. The opposite is far, far more desirable in my eyes.
Example:
* Do I care if an LLM was used to determine the volume of my doorbell? Not particularly.
* Do I care if an LLM was used to generate code to unlock my front door remotely? Absolutely!
I need a warning label cautioning me of the risks associated with generative materials. I don't care in the slightest when it isn't present, because the inherent risks associated are inherently lesser.
My mistrust of digital locks isn’t based on negligence from the reputable(?) manufacturers (Abloy? Reputation is in the eye of the beholder).
It’s who else has access: property and facility management, maintenance, etc. In the age of physical keys, I trusted these SMBs to be relatively capable, let’s say 7/10, in protecting those keys from most local would-be criminals and opportunists. That goes down to 2/10 for protecting digital assets, like remote unlock capabilities, from cybercrime.
As soon as there is a viable market connecting cybercriminals with local criminals, whether it’s vertically integrated organised crime or something like carding forums, physical access exploitation is bound to become a problem.
