This is just rage rant, isn't it?

> "They don’t think. They don’t understand anything. They’re probabilistic guessing machines, using complex mathematical models to predict the next set of characters in a sentence."

That's the boring point to me. I've read that so much.

It's not because it is a false statement. It's because it does not EVER question what WE are doing ourselves. Even when the author titles "People Are the Point".

Truth is I thought it mattered. I thought that MUSIC mattered. But does it bollocks. Not compared to how people matter.

I can understand the argument, but it's like your blood flow carrying the news that "cells are the point; not the human they make up." Every level of complexity thinks it's the main character.

I share the author's beliefs that organizations must be for the people, not the other way around. The big problem is not the existence of the tool, but that it's being used to explain layoffs instead of expansions, suggests that something else is broken in society. That could also just be media bias.

This idea that generative tools are bad is weird. I'm using Claude Code almost daily, and I find myself having to babysit it quite a lot because it keeps reverting fixes I made. Like an API URL that it strongly believes should be something it made up on its own. There's somewhat more time for sword fights, but it's not like I spend 10 minutes at the start of the day setting up Claude, and then come back at the end of the day to a finished solution.

It feels a bit like a practical P vs NP bruteforce attack on my problem space: applying heuristics to come up with solutions that I then simply verify the applicability, correctness and quality of.

>To support generative AI is to say that you don’t believe that people have value.

Absurd.

I used AI to summarize this rant, it was still a waste of time to read.