With the exception of _one_ company that I worked at, pretty much every[0] company was a struggle between engineering and management. Engineering wants to get the software correct, and management wants to fire-hose features into the market. Most of the time (so more than half, at least), management tends to have a compulsion to mindlessly imitate what other companies/competitors are doing, usually without prioritization (so even if feature-parity is a good idea, usually management will want to prioritize whatever the newest feature is, and to put existing work on the back-burner). It very frequently feels like management is making strategic decisions after snorting a long line of social-media-psychosis and TED talks. It is remarkable that investors have any faith in such founders/entrepreneurs at all.

[0]: Various people I know do not even have the luxury of that one good company. Also, it -- unbelievably -- sounds much worse at other companies.

There is also the "You aren't paid to think, you are paid to do exactly what I tell you, nothing more or less!" school of management. I'm not sure how prevalent this attitude is now but it was very common in the 90s and 2000s. The AI and the bosses that want you to use it all speak from positions of authority and confidence. That's their right, granted to them by their position. You don't speak that way because as a subordinate if you do so it's an act of insubordination or disfealty and you need to be reminded of your place. So you learn to stay in your lane, mind your own business, etc etc because rule number one is that the nail that sticks up gets beaten down. ("He who has the money makes the rules" is rule number zero.)

Pragmatically speaking, a half-assed answer now, is often better than a perfect answer tomorrow.

> That Be (capital) want their results last week.

"Now" is too late, competition has already figured their next move out. We need to move fasterer. Broken eggs doesn't matter, the supply is constant anyway.

Ego is also at play here. In inherently competitive fields like academic science using LLMs to get results more quickly is an alluring siren.

I hate the corporate assholes that rule us like anyone else, but this seems rather conspiratorial.

It's not that nobody has time to read, process, or think (that's a uniquely Silicon Valley phenomenon). It's that there's no punishment for failing to read, process, or think. Hell, it seems like your slop is just as likely to be rewarded as someone else's thoughtful work. And the punishment in this case would be... not winning?

I think the punishments for cheating the system with AI slop are far too light in a lot of domains right now. We need to change the risk-reward calculus one way or another, and failing to reward good work obviously isn't a solution.

I'm not sure what the solution looks like exactly, but I'm certain it's punitive.

>I think we need to address the underlying causes of people outsourcing their thinking like that.

Because the output wins. AI-written resumes get jobs. AI-written submissions win $25k contests (i.e. this post we're discussing). AI-written pitch decks get investments.

I just shame people that give slop.

Slop PR? Fix the slop.

Slop design? I’m not implementing slop, fix it.

Innundated with slop PRs? Send half of them to my super and tell him to deal with it.

We’ve fired people that wouldn’t get their shit together.

Deadlines are being missed because we need to spend more time fixing slop? That’s a planning (management) problem, not mine. Management are the ones that forced everyone to write all code with AI now they are grtting what they asked for. I don’t care what date you promised the customer with absolutely no data to back it up that isn’t my problem.

I’m grateful I’m in a position to be able to do this but the way to deal with slop is zero tolerance. Be as ruthless as a Terminator. Though you will need to grow a backbone and stand your ground or it will break you.

Things don’t change unless the people that make the decisions actually feel the pain.

Agreed and it's unlikely to slow down that descent into slop coding until there are some visible issues with it. The market (i.e. companies) are going all in on AI coding because everyone else is doing it and the concern (understandably) is that if a company doesn't join that race they will lose because they never even entered the race.

The trick will be for companies to go fast enough to be in the race, not winning it, just in it. That will allow the time/space to let someone else, whoever is going fastest, to trip and fall so the rest of the pack can learn.

The tip and fall moment could come as a major incident (reliability and/or security) or loss of revenue because of bad products that customers don't like enough to use.

Why blame capital? Why not the customers, or management (which is just another representative from labour)?

FWIW, this isn't unique to capital. The same 'get a thing that ticks a box out of the door as fast as physically possible even if it's AI slop' thinking is everywhere in grant-funded academic communities as well.

I think some people don't realize the unreasonable amount of effort they are creating for their colleagues when they submit slop as work. I see this more with documentation than code.

> I think we need to address the underlying causes of people outsourcing their thinking like

Most people take the easy way out most of the time. Not that complicated.

You're reaching for the easy answer ("capitalism bad"). Look at all the students cheating with AI, folks using AI to write personal greetings to family, etc. On some level, it's human nature to take shortcuts. I don't know how you even begin to address that.

[dead]