Someone up in the food chain must have big investments in AI though. The great shove down didn't just appear.

Software loose on theory[1] trying to compensate with moar md.

[1] https://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~remzi/Naur.pdf

For a company so lost, their people talk a lot about being obsessed with feedback/data in meetups (at least 2-3 years ago.)

I guess the point is, with enough money they can afford to operate like this.

When I read it first, I appreciated the honesty, though probably unintended. The facade of fake niceness is tiring. This personally feels much better.

I thought this has something to do with the Peter Principle.

Both can be true.

It may not stay that way for various reasons. Maybe bringing down from China may not make sense anymore.

There's a tension between "AI will take everyone's jobs" and "things will be expensive." If we lose our jobs to AI it will probably be because it has higher productivity, which will tend to make things cheaper - even if manufacturing needs to be onshored, if only because AI drives down the cost of labor.

FWIW: https://theconversation.com/china-surpasses-us-in-research-s...

The visionaries know better than us. They've known better for a long time now.

> Later is never. We all knew that.

AI will do all the "later" things we could not do and the civilisation will flourish. :')

An important thing can (and one may argue will) be overdone AND hvlfvssed stealing oxygen from another important thing.

While I'm glad you posted this point of view/framing which honestly needs highlighting in the name of a better discussion, I must remind that the moaning back then was for the ceremony stealing time from building.