- cross-posted to:
- linux@programming.dev
- cross-posted to:
- linux@programming.dev
You must log in or register to comment.
Wow, fuck you too. Strawmanning people in dire financial circumstances is fun, I guess.Stop punching down, asshole.I apologize for taking this tone - I was obviously a little too emotional about this. The author’s discussion in the comments here was very respectful.
Missing that an article is satire, that happens. Missing that an article is satire when it’s marked as satire and calls itself satire within the overy-over-the-top-satire article, that’s a completely different thing.
For fuck’s sake, I know it’s satire. The problem is that it’s satire of the misfortunate.
It’s satire
It’s satire of the people who are out of work because they “won’t adapt to the AI paradigm”
eta: which seems like a bad thing, yeah?
Looks like you didn’t read the post or reacted too quickly and too angrily.
Are you sure you read it? The POV character gets fired (and ends up working as a
janitordoorman) because they only start using it “too late”.It’s implied that he actually gets fired because of refusing orders for 3 weeks, and then slacking off another week.
But you frame the only alternative as “use the AI tools we tell you to”.
I don’t actually think I frame that as the only alternative. There’s nuance on the article. It’s a bit up to you how to interpret it. Some options are:
- He would have actually kept the job if he hadn’t slacked off the final week, and kept using AI.
- The job was not a good fit for him anyway because the vibecode-heavy workspace virtually required using AI. But that doesn’t meant that there wouldn’t be other jobs for him (he gets one at the end btw).
- He might have been able to get by without AI if he didn’t go through his gargantuan vimwiki project for 3 weeks.
For the record, I think the entire spectrum of accepting/rejecting AI has valid points, and that there’s a lot of value on the rejection side. I also think it’s alright to make fun of some of them, particularly if doing it mostly to highlight some contradictions and conflicts, without making a moral judgement.
Deciding whether or not to use AI in your work is a valid issue to discuss, but being unemployed right now is almost entirely a function of a shitty job market, not being a stick in the mud.
Well, the idea was to have a narrator who is a bit self-sabotaging in their job hunt, doesn’t notice, and blames the job market and AI. The nuance is that they are partially right on the external diagnosis, but not on the internal one, and that’s something that happens.
That’s what I mean by punching down, though. There’s no criticism of the outside factors - all the blame falls on the PoV character.
There have always been (and always will be) engineers with self-sabotaging tendencies, but with plenty to contribute nonetheless. It shouldn’t be a sentence for poverty.
There’s no criticism of the outside factors
The article literally starts with “In 2026, the job market is tough. AI plunged us all into economic despair” (itself exaggerated, and a play on the typical “AI doomer” clickbait articles saying what we all know more dramatically, which is another can of worms).
It shouldn’t be a sentence for poverty.
Agreed. And in the article it isn’t. He does get a job at the end.
But yeah, I can see how your reading of the article is valid. I’ll sleep on it and see if I can do something about it.
I assure you that’s way off from my intent. But for privacy reasons, I don’t want to discuss publicly my financial circumstances and how appropriate they might be in the context of writing this. In any case, I appreciate your feedback on how this could be read. I’ll keep it in mind, and I apologize.
Anything in particular that felt like punching down or strawmanning people in financial problems?
You’re essentially implying, throughout the piece, that being unemployed in the current tech market is a result of failing to use AI tools, completely regardless of the fact that employers have laid off (and continue to lay off) tens of thousands of qualified engineers in order to increase spending on more AI tools.
You’re insinuating that being out of work (at a time when the cost of living is extravagant nearly everywhere) is entirely the fault of the workers, regardless of the shitty, greedy behavior of employers and the industry in general.
I don’t imply that being able to use AI tools is a panacea to get a job. I don’t imply that the reason for many lay offs isn’t related to AI.
I don’t insinuate that being out of work is entirely the fault of the worker. I’m just making the nuanced point that some workers can sometimes do more beneficial things when looking for work, without realizing that that’s the case. This can happen despite the main barrier to getting a job being a completely external cause (as it’s indeed implied in the article).
I understand that the topic is uncomfortable. That’s why I tried to to put it in the context of humor and satire. Basically I’m asking what can we do better when trying to get a job, even if an external, uncontrollable situation would make any improvement almost pointless.