I was talking to a friend recently, and i think i aligned with a similar definition.

I've seen people who talk nonstop about AI, and how it's changed everything, but then there's no quantifiable output that supports their claim.

On the other hand, I've had a friend start a business, and be able to create an app much much faster than what would have been possible in the past. He has real customers paying real money, which makes it easy to validate his claims.

▲ piloto_ciego 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I have literal quantifiable output that supports the claim when I make it. I've literally been building tools for a customer of mine since January, and while it started out kind of slow, it's now paying my bills entirely every month. I am so busy baby sitting the robots and adding new projects on that I don't really have any time to find new customers right now? But I'm thinking I should have most of the stuff they're going to need done here by the end of the year, so next up, I have to find more people and maintain their tooling...

I don't want to get into the nitty gritty, but I'm kind of at the nexus of tech and aviation with my experience in life. The result has been that I can build tools that directly apply to my customers' requirements and I know wtf I'm doing in the industry. I think if I was "just a dev" or "just a former pilot" I'd be kind of screwed because I wouldn't know what I was doing? But, the reality is that because I know how to do both I'm able to make money. I don't have to look up "what an IAP is" means or "what is the 1-4-1 rule and 2-2-1/2 rule" means or "what is an OpSpec?" frantically when I am figuring out what they need. That's quite helpful.

If you know what the hell you're doing, this is a game changer. Like, "oh, I need a custom CRM spooled up that covers things that aren't in typical CRM software" - if you're a developer you probably don't know what people actually want; if you're just an industry expert you don't know wtf sql is. But if you're kind of blend of both you can add real value.

Generalist > specialist right now. I doubt that holds for much more than about a dozen months or so.

▲ jvanderbot 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

    Generalist > specialist.

No, my friend, if you are deeper than "just a pilot" and also capable of defining and building software (even with claude) that works and works well as extensions to industry tools like CRM, then you are not a generalist, you are an intersectional specialist of the kind Scott Adams used to talk about as "skill stacks" here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rG3PcdTyZ6w

You have two good skills, median-level among those specializations probably, and combine them into a top-tier niche ability.

Also, did you voluntarily disclose that you thought that comment was about you? It feels like you are the friend they were talking about, lol

	▲	piloto_ciego 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I don't know, I was a good pilot, I'm a mediocre programmer compared to some Leet code heros or whatever, but I'm making money? And it's working? I literally see the evidence every day... that was why I responded.

▲ joe_the_user 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I am so busy baby sitting the robots and adding new projects on that I don't really have any time to find new customers right now?

That statement seems to somewhat fly against the statement you have unparalleled productivity.

I feel like the way LLMs work involves them allowing you to do things you previously simply couldn't do but doing those tasks involves really a lot of effort at controlling the things. It's compressing "one kind of hard part" (actually writing code is another a hard part that's taken care but articulate/evaluate).

Which is to say, it seems like you're "working harder than you say"

	▲	piloto_ciego 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I'd say that I am the main problem. If I was a bit cleverer, or better at time management, I'd be better at finding customers? I don't think that's an AI thing, that's a "me" thing. Still, I'm making a living doing this, working less, and have way more control over my own life. My life kind of rules now compared to what it was a year ago.

▲ spudlyo 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I agree that there are people who can see the potential of these tools, and are enthusiastic boosters, yet are still unable to realize the benefits for themselves for whatever reason. I feel like these people are somewhat rare, and labeling them has having a kind of psychosis strikes me as sneering elitism.

	▲	peab 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I don't think I elaborated on the type of person that I would consider having AI psychosis. It isn't just being enthusiastic. What I've seen (and it's not common, but I've seen it a few times), is this sort of arrogance around using AI, this "better than thou" attitude, and lack of consideration for things outside of AI, in their real life.

▲ ActorNightly 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Back in the 2010s, the best, most efficient software engineers were characterized by 3 things

* end to end rough map of the entire space of compute in their head

* ability to search the internet for the right things

* ability to quickly experiment and try things to figure out how to do things

AI hasn't change that, it just made 2 and 3 into a very efficient thing.

The characterization of psychosis is best described by believing AI can do the first thing. No modern LLM can "reason" - otherwise you could give it a task like "make me money", it would ask you all the questions it needs about information that it doesn't know about and needs to know to make you money, then it would set whatever it needs to set up to make you money.

As such, you still need to know the domain entirely to be effective. When you do that, AI is fantastic at getting you to the right solution. Furthermore, its still in large part actually cheaper to higher a developer who then can use AI to build you the product that you need long term.

	▲	jonas21 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> No modern LLM can "reason" - otherwise you could give it a task like "make me money", it would ask you all the questions it needs about information that it doesn't know about and needs to know to make you money, then it would set whatever it needs to set up to make you money. If that's your bar for reasoning, then most people can't reason either.

▲ fnord77 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> I've seen people who talk nonstop about ________, and how it's changed everything, but then there's no quantifiable output that supports their claim.

These people have existed forever

▲ ninininino 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

How would you feel about applying the same rule to artists?

I've seen people who work on art nonstop and think their art is really meaningful, get really into it, but there's little output that anyone cares about or that changes the world or that anyone would pay for.

On the other hand I've had friends who created some art, and have real customers paying real money, ....so it's easy to tell their art project is meaningful. (is that the conclusion?)

Maybe something (AI, code, an AI-coded project) doesn't need to have value to others or be worth money for it to be meaningful to the person who created it.

	▲	peab 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I think a lot of artists want to have psychosis because it would improve their art ahaha. On a more serious note - real art is not validated by making money. If you want to be a full time artist, then you also have to run a business. But if all you care about is the art, then money has no relevance. Business on the other hand, is all about making money.