I feel like I'm doing much nicer thinking now, I'm doing more systems thinking, not only that I'm iterating on system design a lot more because it is a lot easier to change with AI
Other than smaller SaaS companies who offer things easily replaceable, I don't think many of the bigger ones can be replaced by AI, if anything, it might make them better. For instance I can't see us replacing our ticket management/support software, hosting, manufacturing/sales/stock software, accounting software, etc but it would be great if we could leverage all those tools better via AI (some are already easy to leverage).
The interesting thing I've noticed is software library authors could take a beating though. Quite a few libs in the .NET world have gone down the monetized paths, for all of the ones I've been using, I've just got AI to remove them and implement native solutions. But none of these are large listed companies.
What I don't understand is why so few people talk about AugmentCode, it uses claude (and others) but builds context of your project and tends to understand your repos better.
wouldn't AI actually be good for filtering given it's going to be a lot better at knowing what has been published? Also seems possible that it could actually work out papers that have ideas that are novel, or at least come up with some kind of likely score.
people tend to complain more than comment on being content. A fraction of a percent of windows user base is a lot of people. ( given around 500 million.... 1 percent is 5 million people ish, it would seem to me much much less than 5 million people are generally complaining)
what evidence do you have that people hate it? keeping in mind that a fraction of a percent of their user base is going to be a LOT of people so at any given time you can find a lot of people complaining.
> Around 500 million PCs are holding off upgrading to Windows 11, says Dell.
> “We have about 500 million of them capable of running Windows 11 that haven’t been upgraded,” said Dell COO Jeffrey Clarke on a Q3 earnings call earlier this week, referring to the overall PC market, not just Dell’s slice of machines.
And that's ignoring the 500 million that can't upgrade due to TPM requirements or whatever.
what's that evidence of? it's also an estimate of all PCs that can upgrade, of 1.5 billion, 500 million still haven't upgraded. Certainly not evidence that people hate it. Many reasons why IT departments may not have upgraded things or why people haven't. In fact, the ones who haven't upgraded kind of are the people who are least likely to know about what windows 11 is like.
Steam's Hardware survey still showed a 2/3 to 1/3 share of Windows 11 to Windows 10 two weeks before the support ended.[1] So about 1/3 of people who use Steam still weren't upgrading even though support was ending.
It took about two and a half years for Windows 10 to overtake Windows 10 in usage (release in July 2015, overtook 7 in January 2018). It's taken more than 3 for Windows 11 (released October 2021, overtook 10 in June 2025), and it only did that with four and a bit months left until support for 10 ended (compared to 3 years for 7). And the number isn't consistently trending downwards for 10 anymore. It's a mess.[2]
> Many reasons why IT departments may not have upgraded things
Running an outdated OS which isn't getting security updates is against regulations in a lot of places. I'd imagine all the major corps were already done doing that by the time support actually ended.
> In fact, the ones who haven't upgraded kind of are the people who are least likely to know about what windows 11 is like.
And thus the most likely to be pushed to upgrade by Microslops lack of understanding of what consent is. They're just going to push the button that says 'Next' and have Windows 11 pushed onto them.
again, it's really not evidence of people hating it, you are just talking about adoption numbers. Trying to infer peoples reasons is basically just guesswork.
I'm a people and I hate it. Loathe it, even. Ergo, people hate it.
Together with what I hear from people who use Windows 11, it sure looks like a lot of people are unhappy with what's on offer. I doubt Microslop are willing to publish the relevant numbers or make surveys to figure it out, since that's not going to tell them what they want.
Macworld published some estimates regarding Liquid Ass, and they look very red indeed.[1] I doubt Apple are in a hurry to publish anything about that either.
you understand the problem with what you just said right? Seems your bias is overriding your ability to look at the evidence. Not only that you are doubling down on your position. From my quick investigation on user satisfaction surveys of windows 11, it pretty much seems positive, but they all seem pretty limited in scope. I'm guessing most people are mostly indifferent and don't mind windows 11 and just use it. The amount of people complaining would seems to be a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the user base. I would guess this is what Microsoft sees also.
> you understand the problem with what you just said right? Seems your bias is overriding your ability to look at the evidence.
There is no actual evidence for anything. Nobody is running actual surveys of any scale, since that wouldn't benefit anyone. There is only circumstantial evidence, and that continues to point to Windows growing worse.
> From my quick investigation on user satisfaction surveys of windows 11, it pretty much seems positive
And from mine it doesn't, and I have no reason to trust whatever Microslop says.
> it pretty much seems positive, but they all seem pretty limited in scope
Hmm. I wonder why.
> I'm guessing most people are mostly indifferent and don't mind windows 11 and just use it.
I'm guessing most people bailed on computers and started using phones and tablets instead, since the user experience continued to be hostile. That's what I'm seeing from non-gamers in non-work settings.
And if most people are indifferent, but a minority fucking hate it compared to what came before, that's not good. That's bad. That's a regression from what came before. The indifferent remain indifferent, while the angry multiply.
> I would guess this is what Microsoft sees also.
I would guess they don't want to see. It's not in their financial interest to see. They have telemetry out the fucking arse, but don't care to use it to improve the user experience. They have better things to use that for.
Having been in the NZ ag tech industry for the last 25+ years, US subsidies and tarrifs drove a lot of innovation in NZ (also Europe) and then US manufacturers in the spaces I've been in have pretty much collapsed when faced with better tech as farmers switched to using our ( or the European) tech.
A lot of meat cutting (and packaging) robotics and dairy automation are the flashy ones. Softer tech like crop, orchard management and cultivar creation as well as stock breeding/selection or logistics all of which came a long way. The development of uses for byproducts i.e. chemical refineries to change milk into something like protein or milk powder and use the secondary products from those processes to produce alcohols or fertilizer.
no, that isn't accurate. One of the key points is that those previously relying on the LLM still showed reduced cognitive engagement after switching back to unaided writing.
The fourth session, where they tested switching back, was about recall and re-engagement with topics from the previous sessions, not fresh unaided writing. They found that the LLM users improved slightly over baseline, but much less than the non-LLM users.
"While these LLM-to-Brain participants demonstrated substantial
improvements over 'initial' performance (Session 1) of Brain-only group, achieving significantly
higher connectivity across frequency bands, they consistently underperformed relative to
Session 2 of Brain-only group, and failed to develop the consolidation networks present in
Session 3 of Brain-only group."
The study also found that LLM-group was largely copy-pasting LLM output wholesale.
Original poster is right: LLM-group didn't write any essays, and later proved not to know much about the essays. Not exactly groundbreaking. Still worth showing empirically, though.
If you wrote two essays, you have more 'cognitive engagement' on the clock as compared to the guy who wrote one essay.
In other news: If you've been lifting in the gym for a week, you have more physical engagement than the guy who just came in and lifted for the first time.
Isn't the point of a lot of science to empirically demonstrate results which we'd otherwise take for granted as intuitive/obvious? Maybe in AI-literature-land everything published is supposed to be novel/surprising, but that doesn't encompass all of research, last I checked.
If the title of your study both makes a neurotoxin reference ("This is your brain on drugs", egg, pan, plus pearl-clutching) AND introduces a concept stolen and abused from IT and economics (cognitive debt? Implies repayment and 'refactoring', that is not what they mean, though) ... I expect a bit more than 'we tested this very obvious common sense thing, and lo and behold, it is just as a five year old would have predicted.'
I struggle to see how you're linking your complaint about the wording of the title to your issue with the obviousness of the result - these seem like two completely independent thought processes.
Also, re cognitive debt being stolen: I'm pretty sure this is actually a modification of sleep debt, which would be a medical/biological term [0]
You are right about the content, but it's still worth publishing the study. Right now, there's an immense amount of money behind selling AI services to schools, which is founded on the exact opposite narrative.
reply