Have a browse through some threads on this instance before you talk about what the “computer science industry” was thinking 5 years ago as if this is a group of infants.
If you feel open to it, consider why people who obviously enjoy computing, and know a lot about it, don’t share your enthusiasm for a particular group of tech products. Find the factors that make these things different.
You might still disagree, you might change your mind. Whatever the fuck happens, you’ll write more compelling posts than whatever the fuck this is.
You might even provoke constructive, grown-up, discussions.
shit, I forgot about quantum computing. If you don't game, do video production or render 3d models, you're upgrading your computer to keep up with the demands of client-side rendered web apps and the operating system that loads up the same Excel that has existed for 30 years.
I’ve got this absolutely massive draft document where I’ve tried to articulate what this person explains in a few sentences. The gradual removal of immediate purpose from products has become deliberate. This combination of conceptual solutions to conceptual problems gives the business a free pass from any kind of distinct accountability. It is a product that has potential to have potential. AI seems to achieve this better than anything ever before. Crypto is good at it but it stumbles at the cash-out point so it has to keep cycling through suckers. AI can just keep chugging along on being “powerful” for everything and nothing in particular, and keep becoming more powerful, without any clear benchmark of progress.
Edit: just uploaded this clip of Ralph Nader in 1971 talking about the frustration of being told of benefits that you can’t really grasp https://youtu.be/CimXZJLW_KI
I don't understand what he means by "my brain incorrectly learned" - he's comfortable reducing everyone's trauma down to X and Y variables AND asserting that their trauma is always based on a brain fart?
The summary explanation is that UX design/research has developed, over a long period, a posture of being the empathetic discipline that cares about people and exists to serve their needs - which is only compatible with capitalism as long as serving people's needs results in a higher return for the business.
Sorry, not a very eloquent summary this early in the morning...
I agrée for VCs but what I forgot to say was I don’t really give a fuck about them. I’m thinking more about the people who work for them. The collective despair in the UX community is palpable as they divide into the ones who accept that they are glorified marketers and the ones who know that’s not what they signed up for
I have this semi-formed idea that there is an optimism bubble growing in certain tech disciplines. My usual lane is design and "front end" stuff but I think what you're scratching at here fits in there too.
When I say "optimism bubble" I'm referring to the mistaken conflation of "technology" and "products" and how that leads to this warped perception of virtue because technology, not products, is lazily considered representative of progress.
What does this person mean, I ask facetiously, by "opportunity" and "generational companies"? Are they referring to the chance of being an agent of positive impact on the world or are they talking about the chance to be on the cover of Forbes?
If they are talking about being on the cover of Forbes, what do they think OpenAI is? A technology or a product company? If they want to make a positive impact on the world, what does the 2-3 year window represent?
Edit: forgot to tie up the bubble stuff
The bubble bursts when everyone learns the wrestling is fake, so to speak.
Or the bubble bursts when everyone gets exhausted from pretending the wrestling is real, so to speak.
It was easy but I only have a 5mb daily upload quota with peertube.io - not sure if that can be increased somehow. Otherwise it uploaded and transcoded all within a couple of minutes
Teach me!