<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Aptos;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.moz-txt-tag
{mso-style-name:moz-txt-tag;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;
mso-ligatures:none;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple style='word-wrap:break-word'><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>Other definitions: Drudgery should be relieved. A stronger form is to maximize, even require, innovation but not allowing simple activities. I think this is distinct from efficiency, which might have another motivation to live modestly -- compress to make room to grow rather than compress to not cause harm (\u201charm\u201d defined somehow). Capitalism gets at this, but not completely because planning is short horizon.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> Friam <friam-bounces@redfish.com> <b>On Behalf Of </b>Steve Smith<br><b>Sent:</b> Monday, April 20, 2026 10:06 AM<br><b>To:</b> friam@redfish.com<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [FRIAM] IT software dev / coding<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p>In the spirit of alien-thinking:<o:p></o:p></p><p>Norbert Weiner (1950) sed: <i>When we use humans as components in a machine\u2014reducing them to repetitive, protocol-bound roles\u2014we \u201cchain a man to a thwart,\u201d turning him into an inferior machine. </i><o:p></o:p></p><p>Commodification and automation are dual <em><span style='font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif'>operations</span></em> that reorganize the relationship between affordances and competencies across a (heterarchical) system (of systems).<o:p></o:p></p><p>In this case there are two (or more) systems superposed: The <i>systemic metabolism</i> attempting to extract work and redistribute resources and the <i>"distributed cognition</i>" system (cultural norms, government regulations, religious unctions) attempting to organize elements to effect that extraction/redistribution?<o:p></o:p></p><p>We are in (yet another) phase transition where formerly innovative/creative processes have become commodified to the point that they can be automated, which is part of a cascade of "yet more" commodification and automation.<o:p></o:p></p><p>A third (and most salient to well adjusted human biengs and other sentients perhaps?) is that of meaning whose objective is to justify and stabilize participation through stablized idnetity, dignity narrative, ethics, using ideas like purpose fairness, value and "shoulds".<o:p></o:p></p><p>To summarize: Dave's "should" seems to superpose the logic of the <i>metabolism</i> (should automate to optimize efficiency) and the <i>meaning</i> realm with something like "everyone would be happier and more well adjusted" if they were to give over to this commodification.<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>On 4/20/26 9:16 am, glen wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal>There's a reading of Dave's OP not considered in this thread. He used the word "should": "several hundred thousand developers/software engineers should be replaced with AI and automated out of existence". Of course, there is a usage of "should" that's more of a prediction than a moral imperative. E.g. "We expect several hundred ...". But I didn't read it that way. I read Kass' 5 questions ([mis]informed or not) as an ethical stance. And Dave extended it to imply that those developers <span class=moz-txt-tag><b>*</b></span><b>should<span class=moz-txt-tag>*</span></b> be obsoleted, according to Kass' ethic. <br><br>Granted, many others are being obsoleted. But should they? Should they according to Kass' ethic? Something else like the one I forwarded? Does everyone have their own persnickety set of rules? <br><br>A practical (though perhaps cynical or even nihilist) approach is to [in|ab]ductively arrive at what <span class=moz-txt-tag><b>*</b></span><b>should<span class=moz-txt-tag>*</span></b> happen based on what <span class=moz-txt-tag><b>*</b></span><b>is<span class=moz-txt-tag>*</span></b> happening, rather than stumbling into axioms of occult provenance. How and when to map is-should is the fundamental question, much more important than whichever individual rules might be adopted. <br><br>On 4/20/26 7:53 AM, cody dooderson wrote: <br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#007CFF'>I agree with Marcus. It is not just software developers that are getting replaced by AI. Book writers, musicians, lawyers and many other professions are seeing competition from AI. <br>This article about an AI author just showed up on Hacker news, <a href="https://theamericanscholar.org/who-is-blake-whiting/">https://theamericanscholar.org/who-is-blake-whiting/</a> <a href="https://theamericanscholar.org/who-is-blake-whiting/"><https://theamericanscholar.org/who-is-blake-whiting/></a> . Apparently the books get very good reviews, but the author doesn't actually exist. <br>I would speculate that almost any desk jockey profession is at risk. <br><br>_ Cody Smith _ <br><a href="mailto:d00d3rs0n@gmail.com">d00d3rs0n@gmail.com</a> <a href="mailto:d00d3rs0n@gmail.com"><mailto:d00d3rs0n@gmail.com></a> <br><br><br>On Wed, Apr 15, 2026 at 4:27</span><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#007CFF'>\u202f</span><span style='color:#007CFF'>PM Marcus Daniels <<a href="mailto:marcus@snoutfarm.com">marcus@snoutfarm.com</a> <a href="mailto:marcus@snoutfarm.com"><mailto:marcus@snoutfarm.com></a>> wrote: <br><br> Dave writes: <br><br> < It seems to me, based on fifty years working in business IT development, <br> that several hundred thousand developers/software engineers should be <br> replaced with AI and automated out of existence. > <br><br> It's a growing list, and where it is weak, it mostly just a question of <br> getting the token expenditure high enough while providing tools and <br> grounding / embodiment. <br><br> For sysadmin work, the main obstacle is having (something like) hands to <br> open boxes, power cycle, and that sort of thing. The other day Claude Code <br> set up a multi-architecture Kerberos server for me with NFSv4. <br><br> Traditional software development is mostly done IMO. <br><br> Also, building architecture is done. Claude Opus is surprisingly skilled <br> at building plans. That will only accelerate IMO. <o:p></o:p></span></p></blockquote></blockquote></div></body></html>