The "centaur" point is spot on. The only AI use cases that actually work are when a skilled dev uses it like an autocomplete on steroids.
The 0% success rate in enterprise AI is wild though. If you can't write good internal documentation and define clear processes, throwing a chatbot on top of it just makes the chaos faster. Trying to skip the foundational engineering logic is a huge mistake.
Doctorow's absolutist writing style is so tiresome.
"perhaps a few of the younger members of those families would have to do their own homework again."
Talk to any professor. AI has had a profound and irreversible impact on higher ed, it has changed students completely, it has changed how professors operate, and it is changing how papers are written. The leading voices in mathematics are having profound discussions on the nature and uses of the technology. To dismiss these radical changes with this kind of pathetic snark is actually just embarrassing.
> AI has had a profound and irreversible impact on higher ed, it has changed students completely, it has changed how professors operate, and it is changing how papers are written.
University CS instructor here. The above is true, but it's not generally for-the-better. We're working with it, of course, since there is no choice. But students need to develop problem-solving skills that LLMs only steal from them. And they need to learn problem-solving skills that involve LLMs.
And so I work hard to help the students develop skill while using the very tool that robs them of it. It's possible, but it's extremely challenging for instructors and students, alike. It's a challenge that I rise to every day to maximize student benefit.
But LLM misuse during school makes the drawbacks completely negate all benefits, making LLMs positively dangerous for students who are mesmerized by the siren song.
In short, the snark isn't entirely unwarranted. Many students are bringing their robot to the gym to lift the weights for them. And when we, with pen and paper, corner these poor souls who haven't learned to think, they simply fail out and are lost. It's a problem.
So... great with the math breakthroughs and the whole "thinking at a higher level of abstraction" thing, but we have to work with the significant dark side of all this.
A local school district in North Texas, high quality, has just released new more clear “screen time” parameters and rationale regarding students from Kindergarten through High School.
In short, you’re delusional. The smart people are reducing access and reliance on all forms of digital crutches. The only people advocating them are people like you, who call Doctrow a “hack” and think nobody is going to shove your shit sandwich back in your face. Mathematics is a useless career path, they can have AI, and you can put all your money in CoreWeave.
The changes aren’t radical, it’s the mental illness you exhibit that is bothersome and troubling. You clearly have no imagination. If you did, then it would be quite easily to see this ending in collapse because the “utility is just around the corner” goalposts moving is running out of gas. I’m so very very glad I’ve never toyed with chatbots. Clearly my recovery from alcoholism has brought deep insight to me on why others want these things to take over…imposter syndrome abounds, as you exhibit.
I'll grant you that companies trying to force "AI" into everything are going about it mostly the wrong way but speaking from the position of someone who writes code and oversees people that write code: AI (aka LLMs) is absolutely changing everything.
I can't speak to other industries but LLMs have completely changed many if not all aspects of my job. We're producing more code, better tested code, better reviewed code, at a faster speed than ever before.
This will probably be downvoted since HN seems to be full of people who still think LLMs are ChatGPT 3.5-level "intelligence" and aren't willing or able to learn/try new methods. That sounds harsh but the truth is that writing code by hand is going away.
The people trying to shove "AI" into everything without thinking critically are wrong but so are the people who still, confidently, claim that LLMs cannot write good code. That might have been somewhat true 2 years ago but it hasn't been the case since at least Dec 2025 and has only improved since then.
As for the "0%" success rate in enterprise? Ehh, I'm not sure I buy that but I also work for a smaller startup and enterprise companies never cease to amaze me with their waste so maybe it's not so surprising. But it's not because LLMs are worthless, just that those people don't know what they are talking about and/or horribly overestimate how to use them effectively.
From time to time, I’ve seen “people whose time is very expensive” types to argue with literal AI slop bots on Twitter. Then delete the thread when they realize it after 30
mins of back and forth. So yeah, make your own assumptions.
The "centaur" point is spot on. The only AI use cases that actually work are when a skilled dev uses it like an autocomplete on steroids.
The 0% success rate in enterprise AI is wild though. If you can't write good internal documentation and define clear processes, throwing a chatbot on top of it just makes the chaos faster. Trying to skip the foundational engineering logic is a huge mistake.
This is mostly recapitulating the article “AI Mania is Eviscerating Global Decision-Making” that was posted here a week or two ago.
https://hermit-tech.com/blog/ai-mania-is-eviscerating-global...
How many of these articles do we really need?
[dead]
I really like Cory Doctorow, his fiction is great, and he's really entertaining. But, at least about this? He's incorrect.
Doctorow's absolutist writing style is so tiresome.
"perhaps a few of the younger members of those families would have to do their own homework again."
Talk to any professor. AI has had a profound and irreversible impact on higher ed, it has changed students completely, it has changed how professors operate, and it is changing how papers are written. The leading voices in mathematics are having profound discussions on the nature and uses of the technology. To dismiss these radical changes with this kind of pathetic snark is actually just embarrassing.
> AI has had a profound and irreversible impact on higher ed, it has changed students completely, it has changed how professors operate, and it is changing how papers are written.
University CS instructor here. The above is true, but it's not generally for-the-better. We're working with it, of course, since there is no choice. But students need to develop problem-solving skills that LLMs only steal from them. And they need to learn problem-solving skills that involve LLMs.
And so I work hard to help the students develop skill while using the very tool that robs them of it. It's possible, but it's extremely challenging for instructors and students, alike. It's a challenge that I rise to every day to maximize student benefit.
But LLM misuse during school makes the drawbacks completely negate all benefits, making LLMs positively dangerous for students who are mesmerized by the siren song.
In short, the snark isn't entirely unwarranted. Many students are bringing their robot to the gym to lift the weights for them. And when we, with pen and paper, corner these poor souls who haven't learned to think, they simply fail out and are lost. It's a problem.
So... great with the math breakthroughs and the whole "thinking at a higher level of abstraction" thing, but we have to work with the significant dark side of all this.
"You're not imagining it—the brain-rot is real."
A local school district in North Texas, high quality, has just released new more clear “screen time” parameters and rationale regarding students from Kindergarten through High School.
In short, you’re delusional. The smart people are reducing access and reliance on all forms of digital crutches. The only people advocating them are people like you, who call Doctrow a “hack” and think nobody is going to shove your shit sandwich back in your face. Mathematics is a useless career path, they can have AI, and you can put all your money in CoreWeave.
The changes aren’t radical, it’s the mental illness you exhibit that is bothersome and troubling. You clearly have no imagination. If you did, then it would be quite easily to see this ending in collapse because the “utility is just around the corner” goalposts moving is running out of gas. I’m so very very glad I’ve never toyed with chatbots. Clearly my recovery from alcoholism has brought deep insight to me on why others want these things to take over…imposter syndrome abounds, as you exhibit.
No reply necessary nor desired. Won’t read it.
I try not to put much stock in black-and-white opinions because I think the reality is rarely that simple.
Look, it's either simple or it's not. ;)
I'll grant you that companies trying to force "AI" into everything are going about it mostly the wrong way but speaking from the position of someone who writes code and oversees people that write code: AI (aka LLMs) is absolutely changing everything.
I can't speak to other industries but LLMs have completely changed many if not all aspects of my job. We're producing more code, better tested code, better reviewed code, at a faster speed than ever before.
This will probably be downvoted since HN seems to be full of people who still think LLMs are ChatGPT 3.5-level "intelligence" and aren't willing or able to learn/try new methods. That sounds harsh but the truth is that writing code by hand is going away.
The people trying to shove "AI" into everything without thinking critically are wrong but so are the people who still, confidently, claim that LLMs cannot write good code. That might have been somewhat true 2 years ago but it hasn't been the case since at least Dec 2025 and has only improved since then.
As for the "0%" success rate in enterprise? Ehh, I'm not sure I buy that but I also work for a smaller startup and enterprise companies never cease to amaze me with their waste so maybe it's not so surprising. But it's not because LLMs are worthless, just that those people don't know what they are talking about and/or horribly overestimate how to use them effectively.
People in positions of authority are just as susceptible to hype and disinformation as the rest of us.
And maybe even more so since they carry the potential for bigger impact.
From time to time, I’ve seen “people whose time is very expensive” types to argue with literal AI slop bots on Twitter. Then delete the thread when they realize it after 30 mins of back and forth. So yeah, make your own assumptions.
[dead]