(Following thread was prompted by people pointing out that the Bluesky dev team seems heavily into vibe-coding now and originally posted on said vibe-coded Bluesky platform that is now constantly failing.)
Over the past year, every single time one of the apps or services I use suddenly became less reliable and more buggy, I never have to look far for the "Claude is amazing and now writes most of my code" post for the devs involved.
Best part? It's always somebody with years of experience. Exactly the demographic that is supposedly able to use this shit safely, but my impression is they're just as bad as the novices
This is happening IMO because of one of the fundamental issues with software dev (and this predates "AI" and was one of the themes of my first book):
Most software projects fail and most of what gets shipped doesn't work. The way the industry is set up means there is little downside to shipping broken software
Few devs have a reference point for genuinely working software. Usability labs were disbanded over 20 years ago. Very few companies do actual user research, so their designs are based on fiction. Bugs are the norm
Alienation is also the norm for devs, both socially and organisationally. Whether it works for the end user doesn't cross their mind. Whether the design fulfils business needs is not their problem. Bugs are a future problem. Ship insecure software and patch it as user data gets stolen
Devs are so disconnected from the output of their work that many of the norms of the industry are outright illegal: there's a good chance that if you follow popular practices for a React project, for example, you'll end up with a site or product that violates accessibility law in several countries
Few devs would even know where to begin to look to answer the question "does my software work for the people forced to use it?"
@otfrom I think it’s a mistake to blame it on Epstein. The consent / coercion balance change arises from licensing vs ownership, and the extractive nature of sociopathic billionaires.
A billionaire is going to billionaire, (or a baron), because they’re sure they know best, and other people’s rules don’t need to apply to them.
Sure, a whole chunk of them will want particular expressions of transgressive control of the sort Epstein provided, but the control and coercion were there already.
@hypostase that's why I said Epstein Class
The control and coercion are what they are after. The material wealth (billionaires) is one way to get it (there are others, but money works well)
@hypostase I see Epstein as a synecdoche for the whole worldview. I don't mean any particular individuals or scene.
They revel in being able to trick others. They think they have the most merit. They think they can take what they want and deserve it. They think our lives don't matter (or at least not as much as theirs)
@otfrom whereas I see Epstein as a lesser player, who crossed a very particular line, and was then being hung out to distract from the fundamental behaviour of the others. Wyrmtongue more than Saruman.
What he did was horrific, and needs to be stopped, and was hiding in plain sight, like ever so much child abuse.
But, much of the danger of the oligarchy, and their process of control, is not only in plain sight, but considered a necessary part of capitalist structure, and therefore good.
If we are to stop the former, we also need to stop the latter, and that’s harder to do without acknowledging that it’s there.
@hypostase ah, that might be where we differ then. The pedophilia was just part of Epstein circle. Taking children, taking money, threatening governments via insider knowledge and market collusion -- it is all there.
All the taking, and the only limit for them is where their whim takes them. They live to take what they want when they want in all things and they don't care about who gets hurt. Their feeling of supremacy protects them.
(Or at least this is what I'm seeing in the Epstein, Mandelson, Prince Andrew, Steve Bannon, Richard Branson, Elon Musk et al emails at the DOJ)
@otfrom yep. It’s all there. The danger is in thinking that it’s the only place that sort of collusion happens.
US gerrymandering, for example, is not fundamentally Epsteinian. It does introduce a very particular form of political corruption and control, that really needs to be addressed if consent is to become a forward part of political thinking.
But that’s not new, either.
Baldur Bjarnason
Chip Butty
kit