Read

In the future “intelligence” may be regarded as a historical curiosity, like phlogiston

When considered as a purely fictional idea, it imposes a limit on the kind of narratives one can tell about it. But when you start imagining it as something that could exist in reality, it becomes an end to human narratives altogether.

Professional software developers are in the business of solving practical problems for people with code. We are not, in our day jobs, artisans. Steve Jobs was wrong: we do not need to carve the unseen feet in the sculpture. Nobody cares if the logic board traces are pleasingly routed. If anything we build endures, it won’t be because the codebase was beautiful.

We’re a field premised on automating other people’s jobs away. “Productivity gains,” say the economists. You get what that means, right? Fewer people doing the same stuff. Talked to a travel agent lately? Or a floor broker? Or a record store clerk? Or a darkroom tech?

But I’ve been first responder on an incident and fed 4o — not o4-mini, 4o — log transcripts, and watched it in seconds spot LVM metadata corruption issues on a host we’ve been complaining about for months. Am I better than an LLM agent at interrogating OpenSearch logs and Honeycomb traces? No. No, I am not.

A non-exhaustive list of previous values of N have been: Neural networks and symbolic reasoning in the 1950s. Theorem provers in the 1960s. Expert systems in the 1980s. Fuzzy logic and hidden Markov models in the 1990s. Deep learning in the 2010s.