[HN Gopher] AI is not a coworker, it's an exoskeleton
___________________________________________________________________
AI is not a coworker, it's an exoskeleton
Author : benbeingbin
Score : 90 points
Date : 2026-02-19 19:55 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.kasava.dev)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.kasava.dev)
| delichon wrote:
| If we find an AI that is truly operating as an independent agent
| in the economy without a human responsible for it, we should kill
| it. I wonder if I'll live long enough to see an AI terminator
| profession emerge. We could call them blade runners.
| WolfeReader wrote:
| It happened not too long ago!
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46990729
| Windchaser wrote:
| Was it ever verified that this was an independent AI?
| orphea wrote:
| > an AI that is truly operating as an independent agent in the
| economy without a human responsible for it
|
| Sounds like the "customer support" in any large company (think
| Google, for example), to be honest.
| m_ke wrote:
| It's the new underpaid employee that you're training to replace
| you.
|
| People need to understand that we have the technology to train
| models to do anything that you can do on a computer, only thing
| that's missing is the data.
|
| If you can record a human doing anything on a computer, we'll
| soon have a way to automate it
| xnx wrote:
| Exactly. If there's any opportunity around AI it goes to those
| who have big troves of custom data (Google Workspace, Office
| 365, Adobe, Salesforce, etc.) or consultants adding data
| capture/surveillance of workers (especially high paid ones like
| engineers, doctors, lawyers).
| cesarvarela wrote:
| LLMs have a large quantity of chess data and still can't play
| for shit.
| iugtmkbdfil834 wrote:
| Hm.. but do they need it.. at this point, we do have custom
| tools that beat humans. In a sense, all LLM need is a way to
| connect to that tool ( and the same is true is for counting
| and many other aspects ).
| Windchaser wrote:
| Yeah, but you know that manually telling the LLM to operate
| other custom tools is not going to be a long-term solution.
| And if an LLM could design, create, and operate a separate
| model, and then return/translate its results to you, that
| would be huge, but it also seems far away.
|
| But I'm ignorant here. Can anyone with a better background
| of SOTA ML tell me if this is being pursued, and if so, how
| far away it is? (And if not, what are the arguments against
| it, or what other approaches might deliver similar
| capacities?)
| yunyu wrote:
| This has been happening for the past year on verifiable
| problems (did the change you made in your codebase work
| end-to-end, does this mathematical expression validate,
| did I win this chess match, etc...). The bulk of data, RL
| environment, and inference spend right now is on coding
| agents (or broadly speaking, tool use agents that can
| make their own tools).
|
| Recent advances in mathematical/physics research have all
| been with coding agents making their own "tools" by
| writing programs: https://openai.com/index/new-result-
| theoretical-physics/
| dwohnitmok wrote:
| Not anymore. This benchmark is for LLM chess ability:
| https://github.com/lightnesscaster/Chess-LLM-
| Benchmark?tab=r.... LLMs are graded according to FIDE rules
| so e.g. two illegal moves in a game leads to an immediate
| loss.
|
| This benchmark doesn't have the latest models from the last
| two months, but Gemini 3 (with no tools) is already at 1750 -
| 1800 FIDE, which is approximately probably around 1900 - 2000
| USCF (about USCF expert level). This is enough to beat almost
| everyone at your local chess club.
| deadbabe wrote:
| Why do we care about this? Chess AI have long been solved
| problems and LLMs are just an overly brute forced approach.
| They will never become very efficient chess players.
|
| The correct solution is to have a conventional chess AI as
| a tool and use the LLM as a front end for humanized output.
| A software engineer who proposes just doing it all via raw
| LLM should be fired.
| rodiger wrote:
| It's a proxy for generalized reasoning.
|
| The point isn't that LLMs are the best AI architecture
| for chess.
| runarberg wrote:
| > It's a proxy for generalized reasoning.
|
| And so for I am only convinced that they have only
| succeeded on appearing to have generalized reasoning.
| That is, when an LLM plays chess they are performing
| Searle's Chinese room thought experiment while claiming
| to pass the Turing test
| cesarvarela wrote:
| Yeah, but 1800 FIDE players don't make illegal moves, and
| Gemini does.
| famouswaffles wrote:
| That benchmark methodology isn't great, but regardless,
| LLMs can be trained to play Chess with a 99.8% legal move
| rate.
| runarberg wrote:
| Wait, I may be missing something here. These benchmarks are
| gathered by having models play each other, and the second
| illegal move forfeits the game. This seems like a flawed
| method as the models who are more prone to illegal moves
| are going to bump the ratings of the models who are less
| likely.
|
| Additionally, how do we know the model isn't benchmaxxed to
| eliminate illegal moves.
|
| For example, here is the list of games by Gemini-3-pro-
| preview. In 44 games it preformed 3 illegal moves (if I
| counted correctly) but won 5 because opponent forfeits due
| to illegal moves.
|
| https://chessbenchllm.onrender.com/games?page=5&model=gemin
| i...
|
| I suspect the ratings here may be significantly inflated
| due to a flaw in the methodology.
|
| EDIT: I want to suggest a better methodology here (I am not
| gonna do it; I really really really don't care about this
| technology). Have the LLMs play rated engines and rated
| humans, the first illegal move forfeits the game (same
| rules apply to humans).
| emp17344 wrote:
| That's a devastating benchmark design flaw. Sick of these
| bullshit benchmarks designed solely to hype AI. AI
| boosters turn around and use them as ammo, despite not
| understanding them.
| runarberg wrote:
| I like this game between grok-4.1-fast and maia-1100
| (engine, not LLM).
|
| https://chessbenchllm.onrender.com/game/37d0d260-d63b-4e4
| 1-9...
|
| This exact game has been played 60 thousand times on
| lichess. The peace sacrifice Grok performed on move 6 has
| been played 5 million times on lichess. Every single move
| Grok made is also the top played move on lichess.
|
| This reminds me of Stefan Zweig's _The Royal Game_ where
| the protagonist survived Nazi torture by memorizing every
| game in a chess book his torturers dropped (excellent
| book btw. and I am aware I just committed Godwin's law
| here; also aware of the irony here). The protagonist
| became "good" at chess, simply by memorizing a lot of
| games.
| famouswaffles wrote:
| The LLMs that can play chess, i.e not make an illegal
| move every game do not play it simply by memorized plays.
| famouswaffles wrote:
| Relax. Anyone who's genuinely interested in the question
| will see with a few searches that LLMs can play chess
| fine, although the post-trained models mostly seem to be
| regressed. Problem is people are more interested in
| validating their own assumptions than anything else.
|
| https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.15498
|
| https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.17186
|
| https://github.com/adamkarvonen/chess_gpt_eval
| BeetleB wrote:
| Are you saying an LLM can't produce a chess engine that will
| easily beat you?
| emp17344 wrote:
| Plagiarizing Stockfish doesn't make me good at chess. Same
| principle applies.
| menaerus wrote:
| Did you already forget about the AlphaZero?
| polotics wrote:
| How much practice have you got on software development with
| agentic assistance. Which rough edges, surprising failure
| modes, unexpected strengths and weaknesses, have you already
| identified?
|
| How much do you wish someone else had done your favorite SOTA
| LLM's RLHF?
| xyzzy123 wrote:
| Sure, but do you want abundance of software, or scarcity?
|
| The price of having "star trek computers" is that people who
| work with computers have to adapt to the changes. Seems worth
| it?
| worldsayshi wrote:
| My only objection here is that technology wont save us unless
| we also have a voice in how it is used. I don't think
| personal adaptation is enough for that. We need to adapt our
| ways to engage with power.
| almostdeadguy wrote:
| Both abundance and scarcity can be bad. If you can't imagine
| a world where abundance of software is a very bad thing, I'd
| suggest you have a limited imagination?
| Gigachad wrote:
| Data clearly isn't the only issue. LLMs have been trained on
| orders of magnitude more data than any person has ever seen.
| badgersnake wrote:
| I think we're past the "if only we had more training data" myth
| now. There are pretty obviously far more fundamental issues
| with LLMs than that.
| agumonkey wrote:
| It's a strange economical morbid dependency. AI companies
| promises incredible things but AI agents cannot produce it
| themselves, they need to eat you slowly first.
| mylifeandtimes wrote:
| > the new underpaid employee that you're training to replace
| you.
|
| and who is also compiling a detailed log of your every action
| (and inaction) into a searchable data store -- which will
| certainly never, NEVER be used against you
| pavlov wrote:
| _> "The AI handles the scale. The human interprets the meaning."_
|
| Claude is that you? Why haven't you called me?
| ares623 wrote:
| But the meaning has been scaled massively. So the human still
| kinda needs to handle the scale.
| xnx wrote:
| An electric bicycle for the mind.
| ares623 wrote:
| I prefer mind vibe-rator.
| nancyminusone wrote:
| An electric chair for the mind?
| clickety_clack wrote:
| Maybe more of a mobility scooter for the mind.
| xnx wrote:
| Indeed that may be more apt.
|
| I like the ebike analogy because [on many ebikes] you can
| press the button to go or pedal to amplify your output.
| oxag3n wrote:
| Owners intent is more like electric chair (for SWEs), but some
| people are trying to use it as office chair.
| blibble wrote:
| an exoskeleten made of cheese
| bGl2YW5j wrote:
| I like the analogy and will ponder it more. But it didn't take
| long before the article started spruiking Kasava's amazing
| solution to the problem they just presented.
| ge96 wrote:
| It's funny developing AI stuff eg. RAG tools and being against AI
| at the same time, not drinking the kool aid I mean.
|
| But it's fun, I say "Henceforth you shall be known as Jaundice"
| and it's like "Alright my lord, I am now referred to as Jaundice"
| functionmouse wrote:
| blogger who fancies themselves an ai vibe code guru with 12 arms
| and a 3rd eye yet can't make a homepage that's not totally broken
|
| How typical!
| mikkupikku wrote:
| Exoskeletons sound cool but somebody please put an LLM into a
| spider tank.
| lukev wrote:
| Frankly I'm tired of metaphor-based attempts to explain LLMs.
|
| Stochastic Parrots. Interns. Junior Devs. Thought partners.
| Bicycles for the mind. Spicy autocomplete. A blurry jpeg of the
| web. Calculators but for words. Copilot. The term "artificial
| intelligence" itself.
|
| These may correspond to a greater or lesser degree with what LLMs
| are capable of, but if we stick to metaphors as our primary tool
| for reasoning about these machines, we're hamstringing ourselves
| and making it impossible to reason about the frontier of
| capabilities, or resolve disagreements about them.
|
| A understanding-without-metaphors isn't easy -- it requires a
| grasp of math, computer science, linguistics and philosophy.
|
| But if we're going to move forward instead of just finding
| slightly more useful tropes, we _have_ to do it. Or at least to
| try.
| gf263 wrote:
| "The day you teach the child the name of the bird, the child
| will never see that bird again."
| xlerb wrote:
| Humans don't have an internal notion of "fact" or "truth." They
| generate statistically plausible text.
|
| Reliability comes from scaffolding: retrieval, tools, validation
| layers. Without that, fluency can masquerade as authority.
|
| The interesting question isn't whether they're coworkers or
| exoskeletons. It's whether we're mistaking rhetoric for
| epistemology.
| kiba wrote:
| A much more useful tool is a technology that check for our
| blind spots and bugs.
|
| For example fact checking a news article and making sure what's
| get reported line up with base reality.
|
| I once fact check a virology lecture and found out that the
| professor confused two brothers as one individual.
|
| I am sure about the professor having a super solid grasp of how
| viruses work, but errors like these probably creeps in all the
| time.
| whyenot wrote:
| > LLMs aren't built around truth as a first-class primitive.
|
| neither are humans
|
| > They optimize for next-token probability and human approval,
| not factual verification.
|
| while there are outliers, most humans also tend to tell people
| what they want to hear and to fit in.
|
| > factuality is emergent and contingent, not enforced by
| architecture.
|
| like humans; as far as we know, there is no "factuality" gene,
| and we lie to ourselves, to others, in politics, scientific
| papers, to our partners, etc.
|
| > If we're going to treat them as coworkers or exoskeletons, we
| should be clear about that distinction.
|
| I don't see the distinction. Humans exhibit many of the same
| behaviours.
| 13415 wrote:
| Strangely, the GP replaced the ChatGPT-generated text you're
| commenting on by an even worse and more misleading ChatGPT-
| generated one. Perhaps in order to make a point.
| emp17344 wrote:
| Ethical realists would disagree with you.
| dwheeler wrote:
| I prefer the term "assistant". It can do some tasks, but today's
| AI often needs human guidance for good results.
| yifanl wrote:
| AI is not an exoskeleton, it's a pretzel: It only tastes good if
| you douse it in lye.
| rishabhaiover wrote:
| it's a dry scone
| coffeefirst wrote:
| Finally an AI take I can get behind.
| hintymad wrote:
| Or software engineers are not coachmen while AI is diesel engine
| to horses. Instead, software engineers are mistrels -- they
| disappear if all they do is moving knowledge from one place to
| another.
| oxag3n wrote:
| > We're thinking about AI wrong.
|
| And this write up is not an exception.
|
| Why even bother thinking about AI, when Anthropic and OpenAI CEOs
| openly tell us what they want (quote from recent Dwarkesh
| interview) - "Then further down the spectrum, there's 90% less
| demand for SWEs, which I think will happen but this is a
| spectrum."
|
| So save thinking and listen to intent - replace 90% of SWEs in
| near future (6-12 months according to Amodei).
| jacquesm wrote:
| Not without some major breakthrough. What's hilarious is that
| all these developers building the tools are going to be the
| first to be without jobs. Their kids will be ecstatic: "Tell me
| again, dad, so, you had this awesome and well paying easy job
| and you wrecked it? Shut up kid, and tuck in that flap, there
| is too much wind in our cardboard box."
| metaltyphoon wrote:
| I have a feeling they internally say "not me, I won't be
| replaced" and just keep moving...
| oxag3n wrote:
| Or they get FY money and fatFIRE.
| Galanwe wrote:
| I don't think anyone serious believes this. Replacing
| developers with a less costly alternative is obviously a very
| market bullish dream, it has existed since as long as I've
| worked in the field. First it was supposed to be UML generated
| code by "architects", then it was supposed to be developers
| from developing countries, then no-code frameworks, etc.
|
| AI will be a tool, no more no less. Most likely a good one, but
| there will still need to be people driving it, guiding it,
| fixing for it, etc.
|
| All these discourses from CEO are just that, stock market
| pumping, because tech is the most profitable sector, and
| software engineers are costly, so having investors dream about
| scale + less costs is good for the stock price.
| oxag3n wrote:
| Ah, don't take me wrong - I don't believe it's possible for
| LLMs to replace 90% or any number of SWEs with existing
| technology.
|
| All I'm saying is - why to think what AI is (exoskeleton, co-
| worker, new life form), when its owners intent is to create
| SWE replacement?
|
| If your neighbor is building a nuclear reactor in his shed
| from a pile of smoke detectors, you don't say "think about
| this as a science experiment" because it's impossible, just
| call police/NRC because of intent and actions.
| filipeisho wrote:
| By reading the title, I already know you did not try OpenClaw. AI
| employees are here.
| BeetleB wrote:
| Looking into OpenClaw, I really do want to believe all the
| hype. However, it's frustrating that I can find very few,
| concrete examples of people showcasing their work with it.
|
| Can you highlight what you've managed to do with it?
| esafak wrote:
| What are your digital 'employees' doing? Did they replace any
| humans or was there nobody before?
| givemeethekeys wrote:
| Closer to a really capable intern. Lots of potential for good and
| bad; needs to be watched closely.
| badgersnake wrote:
| I've been playing with qwen3-coder recently and that intern is
| definitely not getting hired, despite the rave reviews
| elsewhere.
| icedchai wrote:
| Have you tried Claude Code with Opus or Sonnet 4.5? I've
| played around with a ton of open models and they just don't
| compare in terms of quality.
| finnjohnsen2 wrote:
| I like this. This is an accurate state of AI at this very moment
| for me. The LLM is (just) a tool which is making me "amplified"
| for coding and certain tasks.
|
| I will worry about developers being completely replaced when I
| see something resembling it. Enough people worry about that (or
| say it to amp stock prices) -- and they like to tell everyone
| about this future too. I just don't see it.
| DrewADesign wrote:
| Amplified means more work done by fewer people. It doesn't need
| to replace a single entire functional human being to do things
| like kill the demand for labor in dev, which in turn, will kill
| salaries.
| finnjohnsen2 wrote:
| I would disagree. Amplified meens me and you get more s**
| done.
|
| Unless there a limited amount of software we need to produce
| per year globally to keep everyone happy, then nobody wants
| more -- and we happen to be at that point right NOW this
| second.
|
| I think not. We can make more (in less time) and people will
| get more. This is the mental "glass half full" approach I
| think. Why not take this mental route instead? We don't know
| the future anyway.
| kiba wrote:
| Jevon's paradox means this is untrue because it means more
| work not less.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| Hm. More of what? Functionality, security, performance?
|
| Current software is often buggy because the pressure to
| ship is just too high. If AI can fix some loose threads
| within, the overall quality grows.
|
| Personally, I would welcome a massive deployment of AI to
| root out various zero-days from widespread libraries.
|
| But we may instead get a larger quantity of even more buggy
| software.
| emp17344 wrote:
| This is incorrect. It's basic economics - technology that
| boosts productivity results in higher salaries and more jobs.
| gorjusborg wrote:
| Well, that depends on whether the technology requires
| expertise that is rare and/or hard to acquire.
|
| I'd say that using AI tools effectively to create software
| systems is in that class currently, but it isn't
| necessarily always going to be the case.
| cogman10 wrote:
| The more likely outcome is that fewer devs will be hired as
| fewer devs will be needed to accomplish the same amount of
| output.
| HPsquared wrote:
| The old shrinking markets aka lump of labour fallacy. It's a
| bit like dreaming of that mythical day, when all of the work
| will be done.
| cogman10 wrote:
| No it's not that.
|
| Tell me, when was the last time you visited your shoe
| cobbler? How about your travel agent? Have you chatted with
| your phone operator recently?
|
| The lump labour fallacy says it's a fallacy that automation
| reduces the net amount of human labor, importantly, across
| all industries. It does not say that automation won't
| eliminate or reduce jobs in specific industries.
|
| It's an argument that jobs lost to automation aren't a big
| deal because there's always work somewhere else but not
| necessarily in the job that was automated away.
| slopinthebag wrote:
| When computers came onto the market and could automate a
| large percentage of office jobs, what happened to the job
| market for office jobs?
| cogman10 wrote:
| They changed, significantly.
|
| We lost the pneumatic tube [1] maintenance crew.
| Secretarial work nearly went away. A huge number of
| bookkeepers in the banking industry lost their jobs. The
| job a typist was eliminated/merged into everyone else's
| job. The job of a "computer" (someone that does
| computations) was eliminated.
|
| What we ended up with was primarily a bunch of customer
| service, marketing, and sales workers.
|
| There was never a "office worker" job. But there were a lot
| of jobs under the umbrella of "office work" that were
| fundamentally changed and, crucially, your experience in
| those fields didn't necessarily translate over to the new
| jobs created.
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qman4N3Waw4
| slopinthebag wrote:
| I expect something like this will happen to some degree,
| although not to the extent of what happened with
| computers.
|
| But the point is that we didn't just lose all of those
| jobs.
| cogman10 wrote:
| Right, and my point is that specific jobs, like the job
| of a dev, were eliminate or significantly curtailed.
|
| New jobs may be waiting for us on the other side of this,
| but my job, the job of a dev, is specifically under
| threat with no guarantee that the experience I gained as
| a dev will translate into a new market.
| sibeliuss wrote:
| This utterly boring AI writing. Go, please go away...
| acjohnson55 wrote:
| > Autonomous agents fail because they don't have the context that
| humans carry around implicitly.
|
| Yet.
|
| This is mostly a matter of data capture and organization. It
| sounds like Kasava is already doing a lot of this. They just need
| more sources.
| bwestergard wrote:
| Self-conscious efforts to formalize and concentrate information
| in systems controlled by firm management, known as "scientific
| management" by its proponents and "Taylorism" by many of its
| detractors, are a century old[1]. It has proven to be a
| constantly receding horizon.
|
| [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_management
| hintymad wrote:
| In the latest interview with Claude Code's author:
| https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/lennys-podcast-product...,
| Boris said that writing code is a solved problem. This brings me
| to a hypothetical question: what if engineers stop contributing
| to open source, in which case would AI still be powerful enough
| to learn the knowledge of software development in the future? Or
| is the field of computer science plateaued to the point that most
| of what we do is linear combination of well established patterns?
| biztos wrote:
| Or does the field _become_ plateaued because engineers treat
| "writing code" as a "solved problem?"
|
| We could argue that writing poetry is a solved problem in much
| the same way, and while I don't think we especially need 50,000
| people writing poems at Google, we do still need poets.
| hintymad wrote:
| > we especially need 50,000 people writing poems at Google,
| we do still need poets.
|
| I'd assume that an implied concern of most engineers is how
| many software engineers the world will need in the future. If
| it's the situation like the world needing poets, then the
| field is only for the lucky few. Most people would be out of
| job.
| fhub wrote:
| He is likely working on a very clean codebase where all the
| context is already reachable or indexed. There are probably
| strong feedback loops via tests. Some areas I contribute to
| have these characteristics, and the experience is very similar
| to his. But in areas where they don't exist, writing code isn't
| a solved problem until you can restructure the codebase to be
| more friendly to agents.
|
| Even with full context, writing CSS in a project where vanilla
| CSS is scattered around and wasn't well thought out originally
| is challenging. Coding agents struggle there too, just not as
| much as humans, even with feedback loops through browser
| automation.
| therealpygon wrote:
| I don't believe people who have dedicated their lives to open
| source will simply want to stop working on it, no matter how
| much is or is not written by AI. I also have to agree, I find
| myself more and more lately laughing about just how much
| resources we waste creating exactly the same things over and
| over in software. I don't mean generally, like languages, I
| mean specifically. How many trillions of times has a form with
| username and password fields been designed, developed, had
| meetings over, tested, debugged, transmitted, processed, only
| to ultimately be re-written months later?
|
| I wonder what all we might build instead, if all that time
| could be saved.
| hintymad wrote:
| > I don't believe people who have dedicated their lives to
| open source will simply want to stop working on it, no matter
| how much is or is not written by AI.
|
| Yeah, hence my question can only be hypothetical.
|
| > I wonder what all we might build instead, if all that time
| could be saved
|
| If we subscribe to Economics' broken-window theory, then the
| investment into such repetitive work is not investment but
| waste. Once we stop such investment, we will have a lot more
| resources to work on something else, bring out a new chapter
| of the tech revolution. Or so I hope.
| cranberryturkey wrote:
| The exoskeleton metaphor is closer than most analogies but it
| still undersells one thing: exoskeletons augment existing
| capability along the same axis. AI augments along orthogonal axes
| too.
|
| Running 17 products as an indie maker, I've found AI is less "do
| the same thing faster" and more "attempt things you'd never
| justify the time for." I now write throwaway prototypes to test
| ideas that would have died as shower thoughts. The bottleneck
| moved from "can I build this" to "should I build this" -- and
| that's a judgment call AI makes worse, not better.
|
| The real risk of the exoskeleton framing is that it implies AI
| makes you better at what you already do. In practice it makes you
| worse at deciding what to do, because the cost of starting is
| near zero but the cost of maintaining and shipping is unchanged.
| ottah wrote:
| Make centaurs, not unicorns. The human is almost always going to
| be the strongest element in the loop, and the most efficient.
| Augmenting human skill will always outperform present day SOTA AI
| systems (assuming a competent human).
| datakazkn wrote:
| The exoskeleton framing resonates, especially for repetitive data
| work. Parts where AI consistently delivers: pattern recognition,
| format normalization, first-draft generation. Parts where human
| judgment is still irreplaceable: knowing when the data is wrong,
| deciding what 'correct' even means in context, and knowing when
| to stop iterating.
|
| The exoskeleton doesn't replace instinct. It just removes
| friction from execution so more cycles go toward the judgment
| calls that actually matter.
| Bombthecat wrote:
| And your muscles degrade, a pretty good analogy
| protocolture wrote:
| Petition to make "AI is not X, but Y" articles banned or limited
| in some way.
| TrianguloY wrote:
| I like this analogy, and in fact in have used it for a totally
| different reason: why I don't like AI.
|
| Imagine someone going to a local gym and using an exosqueleton to
| do the exercises without effort. Able to lift more? Yes. Run
| faster? Sure. Exercising and enjoying the gym? ... No, and
| probably not.
|
| I like writing code, even if it's boilerplate. It's fun for me,
| and I want to keep doing it. Using AI to do that part for me is
| just...not fun.
|
| Someone going to the gym isn't trying to lift more or run faster,
| but instead improving and enjoying. Not using AI for coding has
| the same outcome for me.
| gtCameron wrote:
| We've all been raised in a world where we got to practice the
| 'art' of programming, and get paid extraordinarily well to do
| so, because the output of that art was useful for businesses to
| make more money.
|
| If a programmer with an exoskeleton can produce more output
| that makes more money for the business, they will continue to
| be paid well. Those who refuse the exoskeleton because they are
| in it for the pure art will most likely trend towards earning
| the types of living that artists and musicians do today. The
| truly extraordinary will be able to create things that the
| machines can't and will be in high demand, the other 99% will
| be pursing an art no one is interested in paying top dollar
| for.
| random3 wrote:
| I'll guess we'll se a lot of analogies and have to get used to
| it, although most will be off.
|
| AI _can_ be an exoskeleton. It can be a co-worker and it can also
| replace _you_ and your whole team.
|
| The "Office Space"-question is what are _you_ particularly within
| an organization and concretely when you 'll become the
| bottleneck, preventing your "exoskeleton" for efficiently doing
| its job independently.
|
| There's no other question that's relevant for any practical
| purposes for your employer and your well being as a person that
| presumably needs to earn a living based on their utility.
| qudat wrote:
| > It can be a co-worker and it can also replace you and your
| whole team.
|
| You drank the koolaide m8. It fundamentally cannot replace a
| single SWE and never will without fundamental changes to the
| model construction. If there is displacement, it'll be short
| lived when the hype doesn't match reality.
|
| Go take a gander at openclaws codebase and feel at-ease with
| your job security.
|
| I have seen zero evidence that the frontier model companies are
| innovating. All I see is full steam ahead on scaling what
| exists, but correct me if I'm wrong.
| obsidianbases1 wrote:
| And markdown is like the data streamed from the brain to the
| exoskeleton.
|
| Exoskeleton dexterity is like something like coherence in the
| markdown stream.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-02-19 23:00 UTC)