Minneapolis now, France soon.
Formerly data science/machine learning, soon to be something else entirely.
Leaving tech, and so should you.
Nobody could’ve seen this coming!
Such a functional technology, agents. Not at all a fantasy that doesn’t work in the least.
Lol.
You know, none of this was necessary, right?
Software development didn't need to destroy itself; you know this, right?
Right?
Imagining a future without you in it.
My career taught me that a business serves customers, i.e., people. Even so-called "B2B" businesses, because large cos. are just made up of people.
Thus I was taught, and my career has reinforced, that building and growing a customer base of people was the path to success.
Now, apparently, the compelling idea is that the future is one without people in it?
This is, apparently, something we're all supposed to take seriously and not laugh at?
Really?
RE: https://indieweb.social/@jaredwhite/116251939719930615
White makes a good point here about brain drain and AI adoption.
Important to note in his hypothetical that the newly halved company has (1) lost all its senior employees, and (2) is now staffed with Peter Steinberger clones who spend their days tending moltbot swarms and pulling the slot machine that is Claude 5,000 times per workday.
If you think the latter is a functional company then you are a fool.
Very, very important to note the difference between the thoughtful practitioners of craft that characterized software development's past, versus the Lead Paint Brigade™️ morons populating its present and future.
People most properly described as "incompetent pieces of shit" like the steroidal avatar of our present, the creator of OpenClaw, Peter Steinberger.
Imagine an incompetent fool injecting synthetic testosterone while managing a moltbot swarm.
That is the future of software.
Good luck!
RE: https://toot.cafe/@baldur/116251141188293728
The acid trip-level of delusion in software development today is a sight to behold.
As a sector, software development has destroyed itself in a matter of months. The rise of slopcode is being treated as an unalloyed good, but in reality the morons calling this an "opportunity" are drinking lead paint smoothies while stuffing asbestos into every nook and cranny of the profession.
Given the entire sector has gleefully dosed itself with LSD, the criticism Bjarnason is receiving is to be expected.
If you happen to be old enough to have lived through the Dotcom collapse, you know what's coming.
Because it wasn't just the Dotcom bubble popping, it was the 5+ years of doldrums that followed.
Tech was dead, as a sector, after the collapse; there was very little in the way of investment, there was a sense that the Internet, broadly, was over.
This went on for years.
That is the reality we're facing on the other side of this bubble.
This is why I'm leaving and opening a coffee roaster.
What is going to happen with AI is:
1.) The bubble will pop, it will lead to a major downturn as the extreme over-investment will take the entire economy with it.
2.) There will be a broad reckoning in business around the reality of AI, which is that the entirety of the business world spent several years **pretending** this useless technology had utility.
3.) The realization that AI is mostly useless will not be dealt with well, and will lead to years of economic malaise.
AI has little to offer business in terms of efficacy.
What, pray tell, is the technology good for? I've yet to see a single good use case that wasn't riven with problems.
Coding? Codegen is a major problem everyone is pretending isn't there. Labor replacement? This is a core promise of the technology, yet it's just a fantasy.
The reality is that text sequence generators have, at core, limited use cases, and image generation is useless in nearly every way. https://www.theregister.com/2026/03/17/ai_businesses_faking_it_reckoning_coming_codestrap/
I'm going a little insane watching people debate a particular Audrey Lorde quote.
"It means this."
"No, it means this."
"No, actually Cory Doctorow is the antichrist for even mentioning Lorde and I can prove this with...reasons."
Maybe this Lorde quote is over-used, is pithy in a way that people like but also, when interrogated, loses rhetorical coherence?
People love pithy and faux-profound, but Lorde's statement doesn't hold up in a host of ways. Put it down and back away, slowly.
