LLMs actually _improved_ this for me, because they can be the sparring partner and the endless lexicon of interconnected thoughts, most other humans simply lack the ability to.

They do have their limits too, but I'd genuinely, objectively say that for me and how my brain is wired, they've given me the "community" context that the world could not really provide.

I do feel like I'm approaching the limits of what they can do there though. It's worse as soon as the things see the prompts of most public-facing harnesses, but even without that, they can only do so much.

Real humans would have a better intellectual community to offer, but for that, you actually need to find them first and hope that your schedules and energy budgets both align.

___

I think as much as we're seeing consequences of AI there, we're even more seeing the consequences of how society itself has been strip mined by big corps and big tech.

Human connection is dead not because of AI but because of Social Media.

Motivation is dead not because of AI or weakness but because spaces and contexts that would foster that have been replaced with corporate-approved standardized gray.

Globalization plays a role here. Atomization. Urbanization.

The expectation to hop around the nation for your job, nuking any ability at building a local community.

Context collapse glueing massive amounts over overhead on every single communication transmission.

Etc etc.

AI is often not a cause but just an accelerator.

Amazing read. AI indeed completely annihilated every other topic. You can go to any tech conference these days and anything that isn't related to AI just feels so irrelevant. It wasn't like this at all for crypto, NFT or any other hype topic of the day.

I would wager that people who do mathematics for a hobby are not at all concerned about AI.

I'm a technical guy (physics background) who has let his math skills get mildly rusty (SW for a living). In the rare moments that I have time, I try to solve some math problems. That an LLM can solve them doesn't bother me in the least. The joy is not in the result, but in using one's brain to solve a "puzzle". I actually enjoy comparing my answer with the LLM's.

That a program could easily solve a crossword puzzle doesn't make them less fun.

That Deep Blue could beat anyone at chess didn't stop people from playing it. Ditto Go.

My friend (an actual math professor) still likes solving math puzzles and discussing them with me. So I'm not an island. I think the island issue is for people who like to discuss these things with strangers online. There will always be the annoying guy who'll use the LLM and "poison" the conversation. But if you have a community of people you know in person, it's less of a problem.

Math academics: Sure, I can see the worry. Hobbyists? Not really.

Software is a bit different, and always has been dichotomous. Some enjoy for the pleasure of brainstorming a solution, as well as exploring different modes of thinking, along with enjoying the elegance of their setups (be it algorithmic or build scripts or unit tests). Others enjoy programming for what it can do for them (the "result"). Of course, the intersection of the two sets is nonempty. For SW, I think the angst comes mostly from the first crowd.

I too am in the intersection, and it does suck. But long before LLMs came around, I had a big list of things I'd like to do in my life - not just SW - and knew I didn't have time to do even 10% of them. That doing certain types of SW is not fun any more isn't a big deal. I can work on other projects.

The premise here is that, “software engineering is solved.” That is not a valid statement. There is nothing to, “solve.” Engineering is a practice; not a game or puzzle with a solution. It is a way of developing software.

I take the view that we should continue to practice software engineering. Every time you let an LLM generate some code for you is one opportunity you’ve missed to flex your muscle. If you don’t use it, you lose it. Just as you can lose vocabulary and the ability to read over time: these are not skills inherent to us! They’re learned and they must be practiced or else they will disappear.

There are ways to use these systems, if you find them ethically agreeable, in the practice of software engineering. But it cannot replace it. That part is the shared legacy inherited and preserved by each of us practicing it.

Here's an analogy: People slowly developed skills on killing things; methods learned over thousands of hours and it is seen as a lifelong skill. These methods remain very useful for understanding the discipline of killing all of the various living things that need to be killed to sustain our modern world.

AI is a gun. Pulling the prompt trigger takes 99% of the effort out of the daily grind - point, shoot, reload.

Once the gun arrives, everyone that needs to kill is getting at least one gun. Use of the old knife, arrow, sword, etc. is downgraded from life skill to sport. The discipline remains intact, but just the parts needed to understand how it all is supposed to work remain useful. Nobody is getting paid to hunt with a sharp stick. Replace that stick with a rifle, and you've still got something.

Some men are islands. I'm a bloody island; I'm bloody Ibiza.

I don't disagree that the community of software engineering will diminish. What was once a skilled trade is now an unskilled trade.

But I think the intellectual activity will just migrate somewhere else, once all the dust has settled.

People who are intrinsically motivated will continue to be intrinsically motivated and new communities will pop up around new domains.

Coding only came into being 70 years ago. It's not some fundamental human institution.

We're all just going to have to adapt. The wheel turns.

AI seems to be revealing a lot of people get into industries like software engineering or math for a base external validation of their intelligence through their pursuits. The author realizes this and kind of handwaves it away in the last paragraph with some spurious generalizations. If you're not someone who organizes their self-esteem around being "intellectually necessary", this and all the handwringing reads as nonsense. AI hasn't taken away understanding for its own sake, local usefulness, arbitrating taste, or pure play. It's not an existential threat to the human need for community - only to the temperaments of a certain, vocal, subset who will need to evolve.

Very well written. I tend to forget how important the people around me are, and as you say, force myself to act with the "high status" intrinsic motivation.

Recently, I'm in a context with extremely talented people I respect and want to impress to some extent. The difference is night and day

The thesis that intellectual activity will disappear due to AI is similar to the flawed logic people use against taxing billionaires. "If you tax billionaires, then no one is going to want to work hard!"

In reality, we are programmed to compete and produce and climb the social hierarchy. Intellectual achievement and its use as a delineator in society is not going away anytime soon. Your blog post is active, living proof of this.

It's just shifting... likely to more and more things that signal "hey, this was definitely not produced by AI" such as the lack of capitalization of sentences which has caught on.