Similar, I also went back to mainly C++ and Raylib now that I can delegate the "boring" stuff to AI, never had any issues with programming in C++ it was mainly adding dependencies and builds I hated (configuration).
I still don't use it (AI) for the game programming as it sucks the joy out of it for me. Especially when AI usage is currently being pushed hard at work.
Side note, this is why I'm not that worried even if AI becomes even better at writing code. The only times I've spent "too long" on features, are times where I basically had an empty ticket. I need to find the right people to talk with, figure out requirements, iterate on changing requirements etc.
That's only marginally sped up even if you could generate the code with a click of a button.
This was somehow related to the "social activity" part :D
100%. The thing I'm currently working on has been a pain probably 80% because the work was underspecified and didn't take a bunch of legacy concerns into account and probably 20% because of nature of the code itself.
If it was better specified I'd be done already, but instead I've had to go back and forth with multiple people multiple times about what they actually wanted, and what legacy stuff is worth fixing and not, and how to coordinate some dependent changes.
Most of this work has been the oft-derided "soft skills" that I keep hearing software engineers don't need.
My experience exactly, I have some toy projects I've basically "vibe coded" and actually use (ex. CV builder).
Professionally I have an agent generating most code, but if I tell the AI what to do, I guide it when it makes mistakes (which it does), can we really say "AI writes my code".
Still a very useful tool for sure!
Also, I don't actually know if I'm more productive than before AI, I would say yes but mostly because I'm less likely to procrastinate now as tasks don't _feel_ as big with the typing help.
In my average experience, without interviewing management teams - my observation is that the "smartest person in the room" is rarely the one deciding anything.
This also depends on your definition on "smartest".
> This also depends on your definition on "smartest".
Which the parent conveniently left out a definition of. I sort of ignored that implication and went straight to the point - which is it doesn't matter if the PM is the smartest or not. What matters is who makes the decisions and typically the PM does.
Yea, in the company I work in (entire country it seems tbh) - it's exceedingly rare for contributers to get a raise over a certain point. If I want to increase my income I kinda have to go into management.
I'm sure there are outliers, but this seems to be the norm.
How long would you say it takes to feel the effects after switching? I did this a couple of years ago and as far as I remember the only real effect was my energy levels were more stable.
I gave it maybe 2-3 months and decided it's not worth it.
I think some of the positive effects are very quick (better sleep) whereas others take longer to materialise. My wife commented after maybe 2-3 years that I had become much more organised. I think that happened because I came off caffeine and then adapted over time to having a different brain chemistry, so I learned techniques to organise myself that I wouldn't have stuck to had I carried on consuming caffeine.
Was in a company that didn't promote engineers (never saw this happen), only hired managers externally. Resulted in a management layer clueless about the work and product.
Good management is rare partly because nobody wants to take risks and hire inexperienced management.
This leads to a reluctance to promote people without previous experience into management roles. This in turn leads to a shortage of experienced managers.
Good management is rare because it's the wrong people doing it. The bigger problem is that we're all always told that we need "professional" management, implicitly people who's been to "management" schools, this dissuades promoting from within (that honestly can be equally disastrous).
The upside of people from within is that they know what the bottom line comes from, there's been some highlighting of the effects in terms of the founder-mode discussions.
> In other words, if you want 10% of your savings to be in X, and they do a dividend, then you have to take the cash and buy shares of X.
Wouldn't the inverse of this be true in buybacks though? If it's economically equivalent then buyback should increase the price and similarly increase the proportion of X in your portfolio - which would force you to rebalance (might have tax implications).
Another fun one is when sales has already sold the thing to the customer without there being a product to sell. At that point it stops being about trust it's just "get it out there".
I hate this, but seems to be fairly normal practice.
I'm reminded of an effect called Gell-Mann Amnesia.
When reading news stories on topics you know well, you notice inaccuracies or poor reporting - but then immediately forget that lesson when reading the next article on a topic you are not familiar with.
I still don't use it (AI) for the game programming as it sucks the joy out of it for me. Especially when AI usage is currently being pushed hard at work.
reply