Thread

1. zero_shift · 1790612953 · focus · HN ↗

   I was reflecting on this on Saturday in an unformed way, trying to trace the lineage of a decision made at work.

   The code change itself doesn't specifically matter. But suffice to say, it was about an AI feature in one of our products.

   The code was stamped by Claude driven by a prompt. The prompt was for a ticket generated with the Atlassian AI integration. Atlassian had digested docs made with AI. The docs came from strategy memos I'm 90% sure were written entirely by Claude.

   The strategy was chosen by management at the urging of exec leadership. The execs now communicate mostly via AI written memos. I do not know how they make decisions, but they reference tech influencers, market conditions, customer expectations.

   This gave me pause. Who had actually made the decision then? Arguably there has been several layers of human review, but the actual source of the decision was hard to pin down.

   We were not building the feature because we wanted it. We were building it because we thought other people expected it.

   Perhaps reflecting on the state of the market, I thought, could indicate who was actually in control.

   Where do investor and customer expectations come from in 2026? It is very murky, at least in tech. There appears to be hype. Some hype comes from true believers, some comes from cynics. But both respond to market incentives that reward bigger and bigger claims.

   Where does the market's "action" come from? What is the driver?

   Investors do not really seem to understand what the tech is or its limitations. Some are passive operators. Others are just responding to the overall froth and speculation in the market - which becomes a runaway feedback cycle.

   This left me lost.

   Nobody in this ecosystem, I thought, is actually in control here.

   Nobody is actually orienting work and action to real, concrete goals. It's all based on speculation and anxiety about the future.

   So it is not only that nobody understands what the code does. It is that we cannot, or at least I cannot, explain the motivation. There doesn't seem to "be" any form of "intention" in this environment.

   It has all been hollowed out, replaced either be inscrutable machines, or inscrutable incentives.

   Ironically it rather resembles the kind of "misaligned" superintelligence we are supposed to be avoiding.

   1. ashleyn · 1790614243 · focus · HN ↗

      Anecdotally, I know people in the industry who tell me their job is "so easy" now because all they need to do is be a meat proxy for claude and take home the paycheck.

      Question from someone written in AI? Just answer it in AI and send it back. What was it actually about - who cares? Bug comes in? Post the jira link in claude and don't even bother prompting anything else. If something critically breaks - well, eh, we'll deal with it then. FIRE (early retirement), a prediction their layoff is inevitable, and investing aggressively so you can finally escape actually working are often invoked in the same breath. Everyone feels like they're just trying to punch the drywall and grab as much copper wire out of the walls as they can until they're finally let go and/or the whole company fails.

      There's a great deal of nihilism and cynicism in the industry currently, and it feels like LLMs are just greatly enabling it. Where you would've done a halfassed job previously, you'd now do an unchecked AI job.

      1. augment_me · 1790614907 · focus · HN ↗

         Well it's the incentive given. A bit like the original comment writes above. If your performance and impact are measured by charts, meeting outputs, some kind of abstract KPIs and other means that traditionally kind of worked because people had agency, you are incentivized to just slopmaxx it. Otherwise you will fall behind your colleagues who slopmaxx and have a better number on their abstract KPI.

         If you try to do good work, you won't be able to keep the pace with the slopmaxxers, which will mean you get laid off earlier. You will also be swamped in slop review.

         If you get called out on some issue or shitty implementation, you can just make Claude abstract it away behind more complexity to the point where people have a hard time doubting you because they don't have time to get into the details and verify things.

         Grab as much as you can, invest in immovable property and other shit that has value after a stock crash and enjoy the ride

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.