The article pretty much plays out whats happening in our place, heavy use of AI in software development but we dont see us shipping faster, about same or perhaps slower (for other reasons). Its a weird feeling as were waiting for this utopia to kick-in but its not and were cant fully put our fingers on it.
The article and the AI skepticism crowd on HN read like the blind leading the blind to me.
I'm at a FAANG. My org is moving much more quickly, maybe between 3-10x more quickly than we were pre-AI. We aren't seeing a spike in reliability issues. Things just get done faster. An org as large as mine has no right to move as fast as it does.
I’ve been back through your post history (not entirely) - you mention multiple times you work at a FAANG - so you work at one of 5 very public companies.
You have been asked multiple times by multiple commenters to provide a single example of something that reflects this incredible boost achieved by <massive tech org>, you have ignored every request for this, and I suspect will ignore this one as well. HN is going to die unless we all start calling these constant deceptive practices out. I’ll leave others to parse your history and make their own judgements.
It's highly team dependent. Shortly, the more "coding monkey" the work is, the more velocity you can get with AI. As soon as you need to interface with customers and extract requirements, that becomes the bottleneck.
What a joke and not a good one. I remember getting the letter through post to participate and telling my wife I don't trust these guys with that level of personal information. Sad that it came true.
It doesn't even have to be hardware.
Maybe the guy from hardware who created and maintained excellence under his org can bring that level to where Apple has fallen - software.
Maybe the next innovation will be a software/service we haven't contemplated.
> It doesn't even have to be hardware. Maybe the guy from hardware who created and maintained excellence under his org can bring that level to where Apple has fallen - software.
There was already a change in software with Alan Dye's departure and Stephen Lemay taking over:
AIUI, lots of folks internal to Apple were not happy with Dye, and are happy with Lemay. Some consider it a failing of the executive that Dye wasn't pushed out sooner (rather than choosing to jump himself).
From a usability standpoint. Do you expect everyone to wear glasses? Are people going to all be out in public talking and doing hand gestures as input to their glasses? You don’t need to cater to different people who need different prescriptions for their fingers and for me, I have prescription glasses with two separate prescriptions and transition lenses.
Automagical AR glasses are also probably a couple decades out for various reasons. Maybe we'll see more weirdos wearing goggles around but I don't see useful mainstream fashionable classes around anytime soon. And, of course, lots of privacy implications, i.e. here's the profile of the person I'm looking aat.
That’s not going to happen. Most people don’t like having to speak out loud in order to message, AI-chat, or use voice commands in public, and many not even in private.
Medical and health. Cook has said multiple times that he thinks that Apple’s greatest legacy will be “health.”
The biggest hurdle in the health hardware game is regulatory. If they can make a noninvasive blood sugar monitor and get it approved they will both print money and help a ton of people.
reply