Good point, but what if you were previously chaining horse carriage rides and now a car can cover the same distance as 10 of them with a single driver?
I don't know, maximum package turnover might be bounded and most likely you were previously not constrained by lack of drivers already... Sure you might try and expand but why would that work better than before? Especially assuming all other providers now also have cars.
I honestly hope someone will read this comment and vibecode an Atlassian 2.0 platform, preferably open source. But really, I will take closed source and paid as well - just give me something that's on par in terms of features and integration but without the terrible UX.
To be clear, I agree with the terrible products part - but currently they are not dying because there is no alternative platform which is flexible, scalable and feature-complete enough. You may find alternatives for niches, like GitHub for software engineering, but the Atlassian stuff allows for knowledge transfer and familiarity across many many domains. I've seen it used anywhere from government burocracy to customer service and construction companies. They nailed the abstraction for flexible issue management, just the implementation is terrible.
I vibe coded a native client for Jira that’s speedy for creating tickets. At this level, you could write something native and just use their API and have it be as quick as you’d like.
The amazing thing is that soon (actually already) we will be seeing people being paid way too much to prompt a LLM to email other people or respond to other peoples emails. And then turn these emails into presentations which will be turned into meeting transcripts again followed by emails.
The lingering question is if the intermediate LLM translation steps will actually make our communication more efficient - or just amplify the already inefficient parts.
Inefficiency all too often is celebrated by our society, as I wrote in 2010: https://pdfernhout.net/beyond-a-jobless-recovery-knol.html
"Also, many current industries that employ large numbers of people (ranging from the health insurance industry, the compulsory schooling industry, the defense industry, the fossil fuel industry, conventional agriculture industry, the software industry, the newspaper and media industries, and some consumer products industries) are coming under pressure from various movements from both the left and the right of the political spectrum in ways that might reduce the need for much paid work in various ways. Such changes might either directly eliminate jobs or, by increasing jobs temporarily eliminate subsequent problems in other areas and the jobs that go with them (as reflected in projections of overall cost savings by such transitions); for example building new wind farms instead of new coal plants might reduce medical expenses from asthma or from mercury poisoning. A single-payer health care movement, a homeschooling and alternative education movement, a global peace movement, a renewable energy movement, an organic agriculture movement, a free software movement, a peer-to-peer movement, a small government movement, an environmental movement, and a voluntary simplicity movement, taken together as a global mindshift of the collective imagination, have the potential to eliminate the need for many millions of paid jobs in the USA while providing enormous direct and indirect cost savings. This would make the unemployment situation much worse than it currently is, while paradoxically possibly improving our society and lowering taxes. Many of the current justifications for continuing social policies that may have problematical effects on the health of society, pose global security risks, or may waste prosperity in various ways is that they create vast numbers of paid jobs as a form of make-work."
Philosophy territory now... you wrote about technology making labor unnecessary 15 years ago - Aristotele did ~2000 years ago too (same text where he tried to justify slavery but nvm that): "For if every instrument could accomplish its own work, obeying or anticipating the will of others, [...] if, in like manner, the shuttle would weave and the plectrum touch the lyre without a hand to guide them, chief workmen would not want servants, nor masters slaves."
I bet in 2000 years they will still be writing about it - yeah, technology changes our lives (for better or worse).
It's pretty fascinating to look at the impacts this has had in the last 2000 years, or even just the last 200.
Take construction work. Incredible improvements through power tools, gasoline-powered mobile cranes, etc. The productivity per worker has exploded. A lot of this has been captured by induced demand: we build bigger, taller, grander. But the improvements aren't distributed equally. Which means that crafts that haven't seen much improvement are now more expensive in comparison to everything else. Which has contributed to our buildings having less elaborate facades and becoming more "bland"
The same in clothing. Clothing has become dirt cheap. Even the poorest people can afford new clothing multiple times a year. But in the same transition we have gone from everything being custom tailored to most things only kind of fitting, being made for variations of the most common body shapes. Not necessarily because tailored clothing has become much more expensive (though higher labor costs from higher average productivity haven't helped), but because every other step has become cheaper and tailoring hasn't.
I wonder what we will say about the trajectory of software in a couple decades
That's a great angle - will handcrafted software of the future become the equivalent of a tailored suit today? One might argue it already is, most companies and individuals do just fine using cloud/SaaS offerings and COTS apps. So on first glance it seems like automating software engineering would mainly benefit exactly those providers. The other side of the coin is that it also allows for cheaper/faster in-house DIY solutions and competition.
Yeah, I could see a world where it swings exactly the opposite way for software. Writing software for yourself is becoming cheap, but gathering requirements, getting alignment between stakeholders or marketing your software isn't getting much cheaper. Maybe everyone will end up with their own in-house solution? Or maybe we end up with configurable SAP-like behemoths, but instead of an army of expensive consultants configuring the software for your use case you have AI agents taking that part
I'm sure whatever path this takes will seems obvious in hindsight
I see how this can boost productivity...for those that today already produce value voluntarily. These will move one level higher. The rest with 100x the amount of performative work. Everyone will be busier created presentations and charts that no one needs and no one will read. Managers will ask for new presentations and reports every sync, and hours will be spent discussing things that don't actually matter.
Hm I don't think a secondary market would work very well, using fab time productively requires lots of knowledge and collaboration with the provider. Compared to resources like grain or oil where it's basically "just come and pick it up when it's there".
And they will most likely also be the last to benefit from hypothetical efficiency gains because they haven't been building up expertise (by burning billions) yet.
Being able to Greenfield something new is a tempting pitch to use to poach employees.
And first to market often doesn't win, or else WebVan would still be doing grocery deliveries. We tend to overstate the first-mover advantages because we more easily remember the cases where that turned into lasting dominance while forgetting all the companies that died to first-mover disadvantages.
Great idea, except that I don't think it's easy to make sure we don't grant too much power. Basically this idea is the core of representative democracy. Problem is, the people who have been granted a lot of power are very good at finding loopholes to avoid or remove the safeguards we put in place...
There is a trade-off here for sure... I don't agree so much that the goal is to limit power though, but to ensure any power given to leaders is conditional.
I think ideally you want a CEO type leader of a country who has a lot of executive power, but that leader has a board who provides oversight, then ultimately the public are all shareholders who collectively hold the company and it's leaders to account.
I'd argue generally speaking we want to grant more power to our leaders than we do today, but make them much easier to remove and have a well design constitution so certain things are legally impossible in the same way a CEO can't just decide they now have 100% voting rights and no longer need to listen to share holders.
The solution to a bad CEO isn't to have 10 CEOs. The solution is for the shareholders to boot them for a better CEO.
Yeah, for companies this works because there are external (government) entities providing and enforcing a framework. For countries, there is nothing like that. The traditional solution is separation of powers inside of the country I guess, but this requires limiting individual power. Also it's quite complicated in practice and requires a complex legal framework which is sadly often weak to "workarounds" again.
I'm pretty sure at least the better woodworking shop managers and QA people all have experience with woodworking and probably would also consider this their craft if asked.
Cool, I didn't know about this phenomenon. Reading up a little it seems like training multilingual forces the model to optimize it's internal "conceptual layer" weights better instead of relying solely on English linguistics. Papers also mention issues arising from overdoing it, so my guess is even credentialed AI researchers are currently limited to empirical methods here.
In the past these trends were cyclical though. We're coming from an expansion phase (mainly driven by the COVID IT and AI craze) and now going through stagnation towards recession (global manufacturing crisis pulling our service sector down with it). This mirrors the hiring trends (or demand for workers). I'm not sure why you wouldn't expect the pendulum to swing back at some point.
I have been in this industry for a long time since 1996.
The 2000 dot com bust wasn’t because all of the ideas were bad most weren’t. They were too soon and before high speed internet was ubiquitous at home let alone in everyone’s pocket.
Incidentally, back then I was a regular old Windows enterprise developer in Atlanta and there were plenty of jobs available at boring companies.
In 2008 was a general shit show for everone. But for tech, the what we now know as the BigTech companies were hiring like crazy and growing old crazy. Just based on the law of large numbers, they aren’t going to grow over the next decade like they grew over the last decade.
They have proven that they can keep going and keep dominating with less people. AI is already started automating the jobs of mid level ticket takers and it’s only going go get worse. Just like factory jobs aren’t coming back.
Maybe because you remember that statistic about single person households from a couple of days ago, I think Sweden was 3rd place globally? Though it's also a very happy country statistically, maybe something about the geography and upbringing which make that work better than in countries with comparable numbers but worse results (e.g. Germany or Netherlands)...
reply