mcp is really easy for non-techies to understand. if i own the system, can install cli tools, cli + skills beat it every time and i can tweak, etc. if you're asking someone else to do that there's real friction. i'll sometimes use mcp if i just want to get up and running am not watching context as much, then if they offer a cli i'll just move to skill + that or write my own wrapper off the api.
"I’ve helped found six companies in my life, and been involved in the start of a handful of other startups and nonprofits, and literally every single one was full of people who love to work hard"
lol, no offense, but if you helped found the company this pretty much excludes any impartial view of what your employees actually might feel, and i say this as a founder myself.
it's a wonderful thing to have a team that is on board with you and the mission, but at the end of the day they just want to go home and relax and you want to work on your baby.
that's not to say people are lazy by any means, just don't drink the coolaid too hard. even if i'm working for someone else i'm using my hard work to optimize my free time not putting in extra work unless i'm getting paid for it.
conductor was a non-starter for due to requiring the github + PR workflow. do you just allow management of a local repo without pushing us into a specific git flow? worktrees for diff work is fine, just if you want to handle the merge yourself (for whatever reason) how would that work.
ask ai for advice, ask it to steelman an argument, ask to replay what your situation from the other perspective (if it's involving people), push it hard to agree with you and pander to you, then push it to disagree with you, etc.
once you have all the "bounds" just make your own decision. i find this helps a lot, basically like a rubber duck heh.
i feel like people should be focusing on the damaging things that aren't just "ai" (like what he hell does that even mean, it's too broad?).
dark app patterns, gambling, etc. like seriously, i know we all want to hate on llms or whatever stealing our jobs or making us stupider but has this been any different from the past in that regard?
whether it be radio, tv, computer, internet, video games, etc. all of these claimed to be doing something "to the children" but i agree with another comment said kids will figure out a way to learn and utilize the tools given to them.
did me "offloading" my thinking to google or some computer instead of cracking open some library book or doing calculations by hand damage my thinking at the time? no... because a sufficiently motivated person will learn regardless, figure out why things work the way they do, and rather it's better access to said information that helps.
we should be fixing the motivation problem rather than the tools which we've been trying to do for decades. teach people the framework for solving problems and critical thinking. kids nowadays have way more things demanding their attention and it's been on a decline far before this AI wave (cough social media). we literally sound like old farts lol.
it's like when bootcamps were all the rage promising an easy career path, the floor has been raised now, companies will pay a premium for competent devs eventually when they figure it out and it will be an attractive option once again as a career path, but for now it's a shit show.
if 90% of your class turns off their brains when learning with AI then focus on the 10% who understand that you need to crawl first before attempting anything else.
in enterprise none of this tends to hold true at all. you need to balance the optics of what people think they need vs what they actually need.
a lot of times people with "we MUST have features XYZ to buy" and then when they actually get set up you see they use only 50% or less of the features. was it useless to build them? they wouldn't even consider you in the first place if you didn't tick the boxes for some higher up decision maker.
probably applies more to people who are already bought in. you have that "luxury" at that point, buy in, cost to switch, etc.
"i told everyone that our boss shouldn't punish our colleague for X while i somehow made a deal with our boss for basically X". how did this get by without someone thinking about how absolutely stupid the optics look.
i guess we are in the times where you can literally just say whatever you want and it just becomes truth, just give it time.
hah, they basically stole a coworkers promotion, then told that person that they put in a good word with the boss about them. So silly, I do wonder who actually interprets it as Sam seems to hope people do.
At this point I think they're targeting two groups: people who aren't paying much attention to this but may see the occasional headline or tweet or soundbite; and people (such as OpenAI employees, and users who might feel compelled to boycott but really don't want to) who are motivated not to see OpenAI as the bad guy and really just need a fig leaf.
reply