making artificial intelligence super enough for real-world enterprise applications
Redmond, WA
Joined July 2009
- Tweets1.5K
- Following1.4K
- Followers1.4K
- Likes2.9K
Iwona Bialynicka-Birula ⏩ retweeted
Some observations about the "total" automation of software engineering:
1. There are more software engineers now than in 2025, and demand is growing.
2. Software engineers have never worked harder than they do now.
3. They largely don't write code anymore, agents write ~100% of the code.
4. The bottom line of the companies that employs these engineers and agents (i.e. the terminal purpose of all this code) is typically not budging as a result of AI adoption.
This is why you have to think in terms of systems. Automating one aspect of a system creates its own friction and moves the bottlenecks elsewhere.
Iwona Bialynicka-Birula ⏩ retweeted
Everybody is complaining about AI taking their work and I'm just sitting here dealing with all the extra work AI created for me
ALT Everybody is complaining about AI taking their work and I'm just sitting here dealing with all the extra work AI created for me
Iwona Bialynicka-Birula ⏩ retweeted
Pope Leo is correct. Continual learning is the next big thing for AI.
Intelligence must draw on memory. The mind must not simply compile data — as an algorithm now does more quickly than we can — but recall lived experiences, which contain depths of meaning that only the human soul can recognize, and connect more deeply with the goodness of these experiences. Everything that is good begins “with the Spirit” and thus possesses a breath, a dynamism and a sense of communion that, once experienced, are engraved upon the heart. vatican.va/content/leo-xiv/e…
This meme is all I'm going to say on the subject
ALT Seinfeld meme: "You argue about consciousness, but you didn't define what consciousness is, and that's really the most important part."
Arguing that "consciousness arises from a computational substrate, and since AI models are computation, they are likely conscious," is as meaningless as arguing that "living creatures are made of atoms, and since this rock is made of atoms, it is likely alive."
Everything is computation. Sometimes incredibly sophisticated computation, like a chess engine, AlphaGo, google3, or the Linux kernel. That does not make it conscious. A rock being made of atoms does not confer it any of the properties we associate with living things, also made of atoms. Likewise a static input-output program that has *none* of the properties we associate with conscious beings (e.g. information integration, interoception, temporal binding, embodiment, etc.) has no more reason to be presumed conscious than a rock has to be presumed alive.
Humanity has not yet created a conscious computer program, and there are no signs we are close to doing so. When we get close, the case for machine consciousness will be backed by evidence and corroborated by consciousness science (which is a thing), not by evidence-free wishful thinking and cargo culting.
Good summary
12 months of progress on the jagged frontier:
1) AI got spikier, not rounder.
2) Maths, fluid reasoning, expert work: past human level.
3) There is almost no middle ground. Once a capability crosses human level, it often quickly becomes 100x+ cheaper than a human.
4) Cost keeps decreasing after capability increases stop. Language and knowledge look saturated but price keeps falling.
5) The gaps are not a budget issue. Human-level memory, self-monitoring and long-run planning are not for sale at any price.
AI is now a superhuman specialist that is sub-human at running itself.
No need to pace the frontier - the negative feedback loop is already kicking in: I spent half the weekend watching brilliant videos like this one instead of working
🤖 Made with AI
Dude doesn't realize that we've been at this renaming thing for a while now
xitter.cf/LuizaJarovsky/status/1…
So far my favorite feature of macOS 27 is that there's a way to show the menu bar icons hidden behind the stupid notch
Creationists, serious question: do you think the creator was as freaked out about creating "misaligned" creations as some humans are right now? Why or why not?
It's not that Dario, Sam, and Elon agree - it's that each wants the government to slow down *the other two*
Two viable employment models:
Employer pays for tokens → performance evaluation is based on what was accomplished per $$$ spent on tokens (as it is per unit of time)
Employee pays for tokens → it is up to the employee to ensure they are in the black
Fundamental theorem of software engineering, EU edition: Any problem can be solved by adding yet another consent popup to every single web page
