Thread

PS5 Linux lead quits: "a bunch of noobs using LLMs" that "they don't understand"

344 points · 227 comments · alexjplant

eugenekolo · 1789571185 · focus · HN ↗
Hobby groups projects like this are less fun for a lot of people who used to enjoy interacting with smart people. It's definitely become a game of just spam claude for answers with zero understanding or care for how anything actually works. That's fine to get things done and fine for a lot of side projects, but it definitely ruins the joy that people have in understanding systems and working with intellectuals.
1. vouaobrasil · 1789571627 · focus · HN ↗
  In general, society is experience a decoupling of fun from work. I can't say I enjoy every aspect of my job, but it's nice to enjoy some of it, and lots of people do find a lot of their job at least somewhat rewarding.
  People who hate their job of course like to come out of the woodwork and say no one should enjoy it, but isn't it nice to have a society where at least some people can enjoy their work? I used to enjoy teaching but I'd never get a teaching job now because of how AI is being used in that sector.
  Technophiles will say that we should embrace the future because its inevitable but how many good people quitting does it take before they realize that a vibe-coded future of fun isn't all there is to life?
  1. p-e-w · 1789572068 · focus · HN ↗
    > but isn't it nice to have a society where at least some people can enjoy their work?
    That’s an interesting question. I thought about it for a minute and was surprised that I came to the conclusion that the answer isn’t obviously “yes”.
    An analogous question is “isn't it nice to have a society where at least some people are rich?”, and I think that question should make it clearer to many people why that is so.
    latexr · 1789572904 · focus · HN ↗
    > An analogous question is “isn't it nice to have a society where at least some people are rich?”
    There’s a crucial difference between the two questions. “Rich” is a relative term: If everyone had the same amount of money, no one would be rich, you need someone to be worse off (poor) to have someone better off (rich). But someone enjoying their work has no bearing on someone else’s enjoyment of theirs.
    CamperBob2 · 1789574613 · focus · HN ↗
    you need someone to be worse off (poor) to have someone better off (rich).
    The fact that so many people believe this is what bums me out.
    You need to understand something: the people who want you to think this way do not have your best interests in mind, any more than the rabid right-wing Trumpers do.
    latexr · 1789574849 · focus · HN ↗
    You completely misunderstood the point.
    In no way do I mean that someone has to suffer for someone else to thrive. We could (and should) all thrive and have our needs met.
    I’m just saying the term is relative, like “tall” and “short”. If we were all the same height, no one would be tall or short, we’d just be. If we all had the same amount of money, no one would be rich or poor.
    CamperBob2 · 1789575627 · focus · HN ↗
    An economy isn't a zero-sum game. Wealth doesn't just pop into existence when someone in the government clicks a button on a screen. Money is created that way, but wealth isn't. It has to be created by creating something that someone else values enough to pay for willingly.
    No one has to lose anything, in the sense that no one has to give up more than they think the product or service is worth to them. In your example, it's possible for everyone to grow taller.
    surgical_fire · 1789590627 · focus · HN ↗
    Wealth, like gravity, distorts everything around it with excessive concentration.
    It matters little how wealth is created. No one has to lose anything for the excessive concentration of wealth to cause the lives of everyone to be worse.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.