I mean, openly? Not too many. Dog whistles, though... well, you might just be what the Fifth Circuit is looking for.

Why learn to draw when the slop machine will make images for you? Why learn to write when the slop machine will make stories for you? Why learn an instrument when the slop machine will make music for you? This does nothing but kill actual creativity at the hands of the people making electricity expensive. We should be appalled and ashamed.

Also, criticism is not hate, and I think you and every other disingenuous AI cheerleader know it.

The entire point of being creative is that you actually MAKE it yourself, not that you tell the slop machine to make it for you. This is, quite frankly, the complete and total opposite of creativity. This is pure consumption disguised as creativity, wrapped up in a nice $99 box that will probably be e-waste in a couple years when the company goes under.

Is writing a book not creative if you use an existing font? There are both creative aspects like choosing words or choosing a font and non creative aspects like rendering the font.

I challenge you to re-read your comment again and again until you understand where you went wrong.

Hubris, mostly, same as always.

And so are the AI shills. People are allowed to be critical of things.

"We can't be fair or impartial because scammers lol. Sorry!"

Legislation is how we hold the powerful to account, ideally. It turns out, when people have billions of dollars, sometimes you have to stand up as a society and tell them "no".

How do you square that with "use AI and get this feature done in three days or have your 'performance reviewed' with HR in the room"? Because I'm having trouble bridging that gap.

Edit: help, the new org said the same thing. :(

Edit 2: you guys, seriously, the HR lady keeps looking up at me and shaking her head. I don't think this is good. I tried to be a real, bigboy engineer, but they just mumbled something about KPIs and put me on a PIP.

Uptime x customer satisfaction vs. stack of cards. If they don't understand engineering prepare CV and head over to org that does.

I think people are getting used to stuff not working. People (like me) use crap like Teams, Slack, that web version of Office, Outlook, etc. on a daily basis and pour huge amounts money in. They use shit like Fortinet (the digital version of dream catchers) and so on.

Things break. A lot. Doctors successful or not also deal with the same shitty IT on a daily basis.

Nobody cares about engineering. It's about selling stuff, not about reliability, etc.

And to some degree one is forced to use that stuff anyways.

So sure you can go to a company understanding engineering, but if you do a job for salary you might lose out on quite a bit on it if you care for things like quality. We see this in so many different sectors.

Sure there is a unicorn here and there that makes it for a while. And they might even go big and then they sell the company or change to maximizing profits, because that's the only way up when you essentially already made it (on top of one of the big players).

For small projects/companies it depends if you have a way to still launch big, which you can usually do with enough capital. You can still make a big profit with a crappy product then, but essentially only once or twice. But then your goal also doesn't have to create quality.

Microsoft and Fortinet for example wouldn't profit from adding (much) quality. They profit from hypes. So they now both do "AI".

Yup, we are all definitely lowering the bar of what's acceptable when it comes to uptime and bugs. More features more hype x10 seems to be the standard approach to market, but there are still a lot of companies and teams where greybeards and rational folks remember and understand previous hype cycles/bubbles, and who appreciate and protect the engineering approach. It's just that they mostly hire/partner by reference, so it's kinda hard to exit the toxic bubble of startups and "growth hacking" enterprises.