Kevin

@KatieMiller @claudeai

@CaptainCons It’s even worse than that. Invade Kharg Island and our troops become sitting ducks for Iranian drones. Then they say “we have to stay to avenge the fallen”.

ground troops feels more like "let's settle in and stay for a while" blow

My company rolled out AI tools 11 months ago. Since then, every task I do takes longer. I am not allowed to say this out loud. Not because there is a policy. There is no policy. There is something worse than a policy. There is enthusiasm. There is a Slack channel called #ai-wins where people post screenshots of AI outputs with captions like "this just saved me an hour." There is a VP who opens every all-hands with "the companies that adopt fastest win." There is a Director who renamed his team from Operations to Intelligent Operations. There is a peer review question that now asks: "How have you leveraged AI tools to enhance your workflow this quarter?" If the answer is "I haven't, because I was faster before," that is a career decision. So I leverage. Emails. Before the tools, I wrote emails. This took the amount of time it takes to write an email. I did not measure it. Nobody measured it. The email got written and sent and it was fine. Now I write the email. Then I highlight the text and click "Enhance with AI." The AI rewrites my email. It replaces "Can we meet Thursday?" with "I'd love to explore the possibility of finding a mutually convenient time to align on this." I read the rewrite. I delete the rewrite. I send my original email. This takes 4 minutes instead of 2. The 2 extra minutes are the enhancement. I do this 11 times a day. That is 22 minutes I spend each day rejecting improvements to sentences that were already finished. In #ai-wins I posted a screenshot of the rewrite. I did not post the part where I deleted it. 23 people reacted with the rocket emoji. That is adoption. Meetings. We have an AI notetaker in every meeting now. It joins automatically. It records. It transcribes. It summarizes. After each meeting I receive a 3-paragraph summary of the meeting I just attended. I read the summary. This takes 3 minutes. I was in the meeting. I know what happened. I am reading a machine's account of something I experienced firsthand. Sometimes the account is wrong. Last Tuesday it attributed a comment about Q3 revenue to me. My manager made that comment. I spent 4 minutes correcting the transcript. Before the notetaker, I did not spend 7 minutes after each meeting correcting a robot's memory of something I personally witnessed. I attend 11 meetings a week. That is 77 minutes per week supervising a transcription nobody requested. I mentioned this once. My manager said "think about the people who weren't in the meeting." The people who weren't in the meeting do not read the summaries. I checked. The read receipts show single-digit opens. The summaries exist not because they are useful but because they are there. I read them for the same reason. Documents. I write a weekly status update. Before the tools, this took 10 minutes. I typed what happened. I sent it. My manager skimmed it. The system worked. Now I open the AI writing assistant. I give it my bullet points. It produces a draft. The draft says "Significant progress was achieved across multiple workstreams." I did not achieve significant progress across multiple workstreams. I updated a spreadsheet and sent 4 emails. I rewrite the draft to say what actually happened. Then I run my rewrite through the grammar tool. It suggests I change "done" to "completed" and "next week" to "in the forthcoming period." I click Ignore 9 times. Then I send the version I would have written in 10 minutes. The process now takes 30. I have been doing this every week for 11 months. I have added 20 minutes to a task that did not need 20 more minutes. I call this efficiency. I have been calling it efficiency for 11 months. That is what efficiency means now. It means the additional time you spend to arrive at the same outcome through a longer process. Nobody has questioned this definition. I have not offered it for review. I kept a log once. 2 weeks. Every task, timed. Before-AI and after-AI. The after number was larger in every case. Every single one. Not by a little. The range was 40 to 200 percent. I deleted the log. I deleted it because it was a document that said, in plain numbers, that the AI tools make me slower. And a document like that has no place in a company where AI adoption is a strategic priority. I could not send it to my manager. He championed the rollout. I could not post it in #ai-wins. I could not raise it in a meeting because the notetaker would transcribe it and the summary would read "[Name] expressed concerns about AI tool efficacy" and that summary would be the first one anyone actually reads. So I do what everyone does. I use the tools. I spend the extra time. I post in #ai-wins. I write "leveraged AI to streamline weekly reporting" in my review and my manager gives me a 4 out of 5 for innovation. I have innovated nothing. I have added steps to processes that were already finished. I have made simple things longer and labeled the difference with words that used to mean something. Every week in #ai-wins someone posts a screenshot. And 20 people react with the rocket emoji. And nobody posts the part where they deleted the output and did the task themselves. Nobody posts the revert. Nobody posts the before-and-after timer. Nobody will. Because "I was better at my job before the AI tools" is a sentence that cannot be said out loud in any company that has decided AI is the future. Every company has decided AI is the future. So we leverage. Quietly. Adding steps. Calling them optimization. Getting slightly less done, slightly more slowly, with slightly more steps, and reporting it as progress. My yearly review is next month. There is a new section this year. "AI Impact Assessment." It asks me to quantify the hours saved by AI tools per week. I will write a number. The number will be positive. It will not be true. But the AI writing assistant will help me phrase it convincingly. That is the one thing it does well.

@elonmusk — Frank Herbert, Dune Messiah (1969) He knew.

@doomsdayslam @suugenn @thdxr False. I use AI everyday and see tremendous value in it, but that doesn’t mean companies aren’t over-leveraging just to get on the ship. It can be a transformational technology and a bubble at the same time.

@suugenn @thdxr The only people who think this is a bubble are those who don’t use AI at all.

you're probably underestimating how crazy things are

@Polymarket BREAKING: man who gets lots of money when AI becomes more advanced says AI has become really more advanced

Casino owner says that if you don’t gamble daily, something is wrong.

I have yet to see a “vibe coded” application with any significant amount of users. I think it’s awesome that people are able to build things, but people saying “software engineers are not needed anymore” are completely unaware of what it takes to build a system or product that actually has users depending on it.

If this continues, everyone’s going to have their own app and zero users

These people are so fucking weird. And I say someone that loves the AI tooling and have been using it to optimize my own productivity. But there’s this strange attitude towards AI from people like this and I don’t understand it

@DreamTejwani @karankendre Right. All these vibe coders think typing is the hardest part 😂

@karankendre The job isn’t writing code. It’s owning the consequences

Backend developers who thought their job was safe

@TheRabbitPy @karankendre I have yet to see a vibe coded app or system that has any significant amount of users. Sure, it works great when they run it locally and they’re the only user, but what happens when 100,000 people try to use it at the same time? And that’s not even considered a lot of users.

@karankendre I get sick of this Vibe Coding sht. Like for real AI assisted is fine but anything beyond is ridiculous

Lmao everyone saying “devs are cooked” turns out to be some douche that probably failed out of college that thinks he can do it now because of vibe coding. Vibe coding is fun until you actually have users that depend on your product and then you realize maybe you should’ve actually stuck with college

I’ve never been a fan of Bernie’s politics, used to argue with his supporters constantly in college, but damn. Starting to think he’s on to something and now I feel bad. To be fair to myself, his supporters that I’d argue with at the time were just parroting “free college tuition” while attending on of the most expensive private universities in the country.

JUST DROPPED: Anthropic's research proves AI coding tools are secretly making developers worse. "AI use impairs conceptual understanding, code reading, and debugging without delivering significant efficiency gains." -- That's the paper's actual conclusion. 17% score drop learning new libraries with AI. Sub-40% scores when AI wrote everything. 0 measurable speed improvement. → Prompting replaces thinking, not just typing → Comprehension gaps compound — you ship code you can't debug → The productivity illusion hides until something breaks in prod Here's why this changes everything: Speed metrics look fine on a dashboard. Understanding gaps don't show up until a critical failur and when they do the whole team is lost. Forcing AI adoption for "10x output" is a slow-burning technical debt nobody is measuring. Full paper: arxiv.org/abs/2601.20245

It’s just a weird sickness at some point, this level of greed. You have $200 billion dollars. You could wipe your ass with $100 bills and keep getting richer every day. Why kill thousands and thousands of jobs at this point?

@pmddomingos These guys are constantly chasing headlines trying to one up each other

AI moves so fast. Barely a month and he’s already been sidelined.

My favorite thing bout Claude thus far is I have apparently put off learning React long enough that it doesn't matter.

BREAKING: Fed Chair Powell says U.S. private sector job growth is essentially ZERO “Golden age”

@Alex_TheAnalyst I’ve heard certain software developers say they don’t even need code to be human readable anymore. Absolutely stupid.

I'm going to call this right now. We are going to have a large population with absolutely no critical thinking skills if they blindly trust AI for everything. We have all already seen it. They don't validate outputs. They don't really understand anything. They just ask questions, it looks good, and they go with it. There are going to be huge issues in every company as this continues over the years. The amount of technical debt and knowledge gaps are going to be insane. So much opportunity if you actually know what you're doing.