The screenplay part made me think. While it's true that an LLM could potentially generate a better^ script, while writing scriot the author would probably had had many ideas that did not make it to the final draft. Yet those ideas would definitely influence the final product, the movie. There's probably only so much you can put in the script really.

Meaning for the brother is one thing, but as a potential watcher, I would almost always prefer a movie that someone really cared about^^.

^: depending on the definition of "better"

^^: as a fallible human being I am not perfect at detecting that care, but there had definitely been cases in my life when someone was talking about a thing that I would not really care about otherwise, but their passion made the talk extremely interesting and memorable

I'm literally considering a career switch from software engineering to electrical engineering and electronics, and naturally going back to school, because the AI and the way it's used in writing software has sucked out all the meaning in it for me.

The author attributes meaning for the giver and hopefully receiver to time spent by the giver. They argue less time spent for same utility lowers the meaning.

I see something very different:

1. The government post shared as an example of efficiency to utility increase has glaring errors: “journey-level developers”. You will never achieve any improvement on government code bases if the people leading the effort can’t pay attention to the most basic and broadcasted elements of the job. AI used by junior developers will only compound the massive complexity of government systems to the point where they are not fixable by seniors and they are not usable by humans.

2. The time spent doing something, meaningful or not, with care is a training for that person into attention to detail, which is absolutely critical to getting things right. People who lazily lean on generating more without attention to detail, don’t see the real point of the work - it’s not to add more stuff to less space (physical or mental) faster. It’s to make the existing space better and bigger by needing less in it. The rest is just mental and physical complexity overload. We are about to drawn in that overload like hoarders next to a dumpster.

3. If you ever live in a small home you may noticed that the joy of getting things (usually derived from dopamine-seeking behaviors like shopping or making, or shopping for ingredients so you can make things, or from getting toys for your kids or other people getting toys for your kids) will quickly overload any space in your living quarters. Your house becomes unbearably small and it becomes impossible to find things in piles or drawers filled with other things if nobody ever organizes them. We all have become dopamine adduces or the world has turned us into such and there are few if any humans willing and capable of organizing that world. So most people today will be paralyzed with a million choices that were never organized or pruned down by the owner or their predecessors. The overwhelming feeling would be to escape the dread of organization into more dopamine- generating behaviors. We need more of the “moms” who clean up our rooms after we’ve had fun with all the legos we can now generate. Or we will all be living in a dumpster before too long.

This is a really good piece especially the part on what and why makes sense to build with AI or not