I get exhausted because of the cognitive overhead of switching between 2 or 3 projects at once. I always want to be manually verifying or prompt writing, and keeping it all straight is taxing. But I’m getting so much more done.
I work at a company that maintains one of the largest Rails codebases in the world (their claim, but believable). My experience has been the opposite - Claude and Cursor have done a wonderful job of helping me understand the implement new features in this gigantic codebase. I actually found out through AI that while I enjoy writing code, I enjoy building great software better, the coding was just a means to the end.
I am having a blast at work. I've been leaning hard into AI (as directed by leadership) while others are falling far far behind. I am building new production features, often solo or with one or two other engineers, at lightning speed, and being recognized across the org for it. This is an incredible opportunity for many engineers that won't last. I'm trying to make the most of it. It will be sad when software is no longer a useful pastimes for humans. I'm thinking another three years and most of us will be unemployed or our jobs will have been completely transformed into something unrecognizable a few short years ago.
I think what GP meant is that when it involves money, suffering is nearly impossible to prevent. That's why you have puppy mills, for example. Most people don't know how the puppies are raised, they just see the cute puppy in the shop. The same way people see a pretty piece of meat in the supermarket and don't know its history.
Raising animals for meat is theoretically doable with no suffering (not sure about milk), but it's not happening in practice. With pets the situation is better - a lot of people adopt and some care about how their pet was raised if they buy it from a breeder.
I didn't intend to. I think that domesticated animals have long had a harmonious relationship with humans so I find it a bit difficult to believe that it's always an ethical dilemma. Pets are just the most obvious lens to identify that.
I also think we need to be careful with the idea that we should entirely avoid suffering because it's impossible to do.
I think that it is what you know of the history of animal domestication and of pets that makes you think that there is an acceptable and low amount of suffering.
For pets, I don't think you understood what GP was saying: pet breeding involves massive amounts of death of puppies/kittens that aren't pretty enough or don't manage to survive infancy, the female breeders are basically confined to cages and "producing" all their life, some short-nosed breeds of dogs and cats are even illegal in some countries because they spend their life unable to breathe properly, pets are abandoned and killed, etc. The happy pets you see in the street are not representative of what it is to be a pet. But yes, these ones are not suffering.
As for long and harmonious, as much as we tend to see anything in the distant past as innocent, I'd remind you that the systematic killing of male chicks, the killing of veals to avoid them drinking all the milk, the killing of all animals as soon as productivity drops beyond a threshold, are not new practices. No animal wants to be enslaved. Same as no human wants to be enslaved.
I'm not attacking you, just attempting to give you an idea of why other commenters believe animal domestication is not ethical.
Join Discord servers of your favorite games and join social servers, build/play with the same folks. It can be like playing in a local band (also a great way to socialize and find purpose).
reply