No Man Is an Island

    No man is an island,
    Entire of itself;
    Every man is a piece of the continent,
    A part of the main.
    
    If a clod be washed away by the sea,
    Europe is the less,
    As well as if a promontory were:
    As well as if a manor of thy friend's
    Or of thine own were.
    
    Any man's death diminishes me,
    Because I am involved in mankind.
    And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls;
    It tolls for thee

The internet itself seems filled with the AI maximalists who have no end of hype for the latest prompt 'technique' or AI doomers that would skin you alive if you mention you used AI to make a photo once.

Quietly among peers I talk to there seems to be a very different group that exists: those that recognize AI is super valuable for getting a lot of work done but also feel that suddenly the work is so much less exciting than it was before.

Sure, there's the obvious "I enjoy the mechanics of programming" component that's gone but then there's also this general feeling that is hard to shake which feels a little deeper. I've wondered about it. Is it all the layoffs? The suddenly shaky economics for a lot of our companies? The uncertainty of the career's future in general?

I think the author has put their thumb on it well to describe it as a lack of intellectual community. That feels like at least part of it.

"Private intellectual activity that is sustained, complex, and long-term requires an external intellectual community to provide material and motivation, like fuel and oxidizer. That private activity, in turn, sustains the community..."

I think a lot of the greatest art has been produced by this kind of "scene". Music for example isn't created only by an individual, it comes from listening and watching and playing with others. Later, you sit down and all of that input turns into something brand new.

I think at the same time I started getting "out of coding", I started getting deeper into music. And if it was just me, that would've been a short lived thing. But having people in real life to play with and bounce off makes it about 100x better and keeps you going long after you would've fallen off on your own.

I'd encourage anyone who feels this way to find something similar. The act of creation is still as essential as before, you just need to direct your energy toward something more purely human. Get into writing, drawing, woodworking... even as these things are instantly mass-producible, we'll still value and pay for humans to do them.

I think this has really softened the blow for me!

It's getting lonely out there, even if or especially if you've converged on "I don't care much about AI".

> The discourse around software engineering has gotten dumber. It’s like everyone in the industry lost 30 IQ points. People used to talk about compilers, type systems, logic. Now they talk about “prompts”, “harnesses”, “loops”. The discourse is narrower, shallower, and more repetitive. There’s only so many times I can hear about “agentic harnesses” before I lose my mind.

I agree with the frustration here :)

> You design a revolutionary new programming language: who cares? Maybe Claude cares, for what that’s worth. But humans don’t write or even read the code anymore. The programming language is an implementation detail the humans no longer have to care about.

Perhaps the people who weren't inclined to think about compilers, type systems, and logic before coding agents will never think about those things. If anything, I think about those systems significantly more now, because I view them as ways to describe the search space for the agent ... and perhaps, in the future, even tools to structure agentic latent representations.

So I propose rotating your viewport: yes, perhaps entertain the idea that it doesn't make sense to think about these things for human consumption ... but instead, what if we think of programming language and compiler design as being a tool to control the search space, and suddenly there's lots of new ways to think about these things.

Is this a valuable way to think? I'm not sure, but we should try and find out.

It's interesting, even gratifying, to see someone use the word "superfluous" multiple times when reaching to describe the sensation of what we are now.

The society composed of people who feel superfluous is the one that is most ripe for to totalitarianism. No one uses that term that way without knowingly referencing Arendt.

We're promised superabundance, but nothing is more abundant than it was ten years ago. We are just more superfluous. We worked out logic and equations and algorithms and systems to give meaning to our lives, to build libraries bit by bit, fix bug by bug, to make something out of nothing, and we did. We built miraculous things. And everything we made was stolen, repackaged and sold back to us by the people with the deepest pockets and the biggest GPU farms. And we're supposed to feel grateful for that. Because supposedly, our work was drudgery before all this.

Our work gave us meaning. Our work was art.

It's theft, piracy, and cannibalism. When a society becomes made up of superfluous people, it turns to slaughtering its neighbors and plundering their resources. Then the people who seem successful in that society are no longer the ones who built something, they're the ones who learned how to cheat the best. I'm not sure which came first in this case, the violation of the laws or the building of these massive structures to violate them. Maybe accepting that we'll never need to think for ourselves again is the terminal failure of the educational system. Maybe it's the end stage of an information war waged on us by the smart but dreadfully nihilistic thought processes of peoples who've lived too long under totalitarian regimes, wherein our own hope for redemption by hard work has finally had the knees cut out from under it by the same cynical resignation and apathy as exists in, e.g. Russia or other states that are terminally corrupt and wicked.

But what we are engendering with AI is the degradation of the human mind.

And you AI boosters out there in the park, you're scavengers feeding on the dead body of a civilization, nothing more.

I feel we’re all realizing, at the same time, that (1) intellectual activity is communal, and yet (2) those communities are sustained by recognition of individual achievement. What a way to find this out.

I claim (here and in my post) that humanity actually can’t advance without these human communities. It’s critical that people not give up learning things that AI knows better than they do, because they play an important role in these communities, and the community is critical.

My (maybe naive) hope is still that people find ways to keep doing this stuff for fun, like chess (competitions, awards, coaches, I don’t know). We still have chess competitions and the like, even though computers are far better at chess and have been for a while. The community and the recognition of individual achievement are both there. And human chess and chess engines have gotten vastly better, so computer dominance failed to kill progress in chess (today’s stockfish would’ve beaten Kasparov in 1997 running on a desktop from 1994: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/4MLBK7iCW3vYd93Mn/a-closer-l...)

Maybe math olympiads and programming contests live on well past the end of their practical utility—I always liked them.

What this really points to is a new ecosystem which is now built on theft.

I agree, the depression is real, and it has destroyed the community of code as well as the individual spirit of wanting to do, well, anything. What's the point of building anything? Anyone could prompt an AI to get some result, there is no real intelligence necessary. But what has led to this situation? Theft. The plundering of all our collective work and all the intellectual effort that was put into it.

This became really clear to me today while I was playing around with the new Illustrator/Photoshop AI-coded ripoffs of the Adobe suite. (Excuse me, VectorCraft is an "open-source, clean-room reimplementation of Adobe Illustrator, rebuilt in pure Rust" per their Github).

I may loathe Adobe and wish I didn't have to pay them another dime. But there is a fundamental difference between a group of people sitting down to build a replacement for Illustrator (like e.g. Affinity), and someone prompting an AI to just rewrite Illustrator from scratch. The AI is laundering other people's work. The AI contains a compressed version of billions of lines of code, and from that it is unpacking essentially a pirated Frankenstein binary, washed of attribution. It may have no lines of code in common with Illustrator, but everything it has was taken from code that someone wrote.

Imagine someone writes a book and you want to distribute it for free. If you reconstruct the book by taking random words clipped out of newspapers and pasted together, that's still a copy of the book.

The question is, what's anyone's motivation to write anything anymore? Who's going to write a new, better language? But we would not be in this situation except for the grand theft which allowed the creation of LLMs in the first place.

They do have their limits too, but I'd genuinely, objectively say that for me and how my brain is wired, they've given me the "community" context that the world could not really provide.

I do feel like I'm approaching the limits of what they can do there though. It's worse as soon as the things see the prompts of most public-facing harnesses, but even without that, they can only do so much.

Real humans would have a better intellectual community to offer, but for that, you actually need to find them first and hope that your schedules and energy budgets both align.

___

I think as much as we're seeing consequences of AI there, we're even more seeing the consequences of how society itself has been strip mined by big corps and big tech.

Human connection is dead not because of AI but because of Social Media.

Motivation is dead not because of AI or weakness but because spaces and contexts that would foster that have been replaced with corporate-approved standardized gray.

Globalization plays a role here. Atomization. Urbanization.

The expectation to hop around the nation for your job, nuking any ability at building a local community.

Context collapse glueing massive amounts over overhead on every single communication transmission.

Etc etc.

AI is often not a cause but just an accelerator.

Aside from programming, one of my main interests is reading and writing. I think that literary fiction proves what the author is saying above. Even the most reclusive, private authors (Thomas Pynchon, Cormac McCarthy, etc.) actually published their work. They contributed to the community and took part as readers. Literature is always in conversation with itself. And although literary fiction may seem not to have the sway it once did in society, it is flourishing among the people who care about it (like me).

My thoughts aren't fully formed, but I find it interesting to situate technical pursuits like software engineering with humanities. And anyway, I've always felt that programming is both a science and art.

> Prompting is not a skill, at least, it’s a much shallower skill than software engineering. The instrumental dimension of the work has improved in that people can get more output per unit of effort, but the dimension of work that’s about building up human capital has collapsed.

I think that this is incorrect in a specific literal sense, but not in any way that changes the broader effect.

I think that "prompting" is in fact a deep skill, but not one that practically anyone has cultivated to any reasonable degree, for the simple reason that the tools change faster than anyone grip can acclimate to them.

Nobody on earth mastered the effective co-working with Sonnet 3.5. That model was a lightswitch moment for me personally. I built an agentic harness for it to convert a medium-large vue-class-component framework into vue-3's composition API, rescuing a personal project from certain doom of software rot.

I can say that I got a lot out of that model and that my own usage was (if I can say so) ahead of the curve. But with hindsight, I know that I barely scratched the surface of what it was capable of. Have I continued to hone my Sonnet 3.5 harness? Of course not. I have started over (or at least reset many assumptions) a dozen times since then. Even if I were so inclined - in the way that I am inclined to learn Chopin's Nocturnes - the model is now unavailable.

The ship has sailed.

So to the OP's point - it's not so much that skilled usage has disappeared, but that skills are self-obsoleting faster than any real degree of mastery can set in. And as an immediate consequence, the churn is too quick for anything resembling a relationship of apprenticeship. This is effectively a cultural singularity where, yes, we are each of us drifting much more alone.

On a personal level I had so many to-dos, like learning Rust "properly", but I feel incredibly demotivated now, because I can just get Opus or Sol to do it. But maybe I just need to block out one day a week to be my "no AI day", and just do it.

[1] https://mathstodon.xyz/@tao/117395269325940185

I'm a technical guy (physics background) who has let his math skills get mildly rusty (SW for a living). In the rare moments that I have time, I try to solve some math problems. That an LLM can solve them doesn't bother me in the least. The joy is not in the result, but in using one's brain to solve a "puzzle". I actually enjoy comparing my answer with the LLM's.

That a program could easily solve a crossword puzzle doesn't make them less fun.

That Deep Blue could beat anyone at chess didn't stop people from playing it. Ditto Go.

My friend (an actual math professor) still likes solving math puzzles and discussing them with me. So I'm not an island. I think the island issue is for people who like to discuss these things with strangers online. There will always be the annoying guy who'll use the LLM and "poison" the conversation. But if you have a community of people you know in person, it's less of a problem.

Math academics: Sure, I can see the worry. Hobbyists? Not really.

Software is a bit different, and always has been dichotomous. Some enjoy for the pleasure of brainstorming a solution, as well as exploring different modes of thinking, along with enjoying the elegance of their setups (be it algorithmic or build scripts or unit tests). Others enjoy programming for what it can do for them (the "result"). Of course, the intersection of the two sets is nonempty. For SW, I think the angst comes mostly from the first crowd.

I too am in the intersection, and it does suck. But long before LLMs came around, I had a big list of things I'd like to do in my life - not just SW - and knew I didn't have time to do even 10% of them. That doing certain types of SW is not fun any more isn't a big deal. I can work on other projects.

I'm don't think I'm a booster - I'm personally struggling to keep the value of craft and taste in mind when I read such stuff; I believe those things will remain human-driven. Hopefully we can all agree there is a population out there using Claude or Chat to finish half-started or previously-aborted projects because they now have a (canned) accountability partner, projects that weren't economically feasible, where part of the prototyping thought process a funding picture and Total Addressable Market discussion. They may be super-niche and not sustainable businesses. You could even extend your community-building desires if you chose to.

Why isn't there more idea-maxxing happening, where we come together and workshop what we can actually accomplish for next to nothing timewise, but have some real positive impact? Like nurturing a community of your choice.

This is just me running an OODA loop - I see lots of crap / low-impact to humanity actions taking place. DM me for a virt coffee (see my profile) if you wanna talk some more about this 1:1.

I am super sympathetic with the bleak outlook, but it's not in my nature to stay focused there.

This is how we manifest Forster’s _The Machine Stops_. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Machine_Stops

Yeah, this is still there. I get a lot from other people's posts. VictorTaelin's memory system was pretty cool and I implemented a variant of it https://x.com/VictorTaelin/status/2081453432318132603?s=20

I write down what I learn mostly as a note to myself https://wiki.roshangeorge.dev/w/Blog/2026-10-03/AI_Updates

It's all fine. The world is just as good as it was before but we can do more. And Taelin's technique is pretty cool. It's just that some large amount of ideas I'd learned are now not unique and some new ideas are coming to exist.

I take the view that we should continue to practice software engineering. Every time you let an LLM generate some code for you is one opportunity you’ve missed to flex your muscle. If you don’t use it, you lose it. Just as you can lose vocabulary and the ability to read over time: these are not skills inherent to us! They’re learned and they must be practiced or else they will disappear.

There are ways to use these systems, if you find them ethically agreeable, in the practice of software engineering. But it cannot replace it. That part is the shared legacy inherited and preserved by each of us practicing it.

But I think the intellectual activity will just migrate somewhere else, once all the dust has settled.

People who are intrinsically motivated will continue to be intrinsically motivated and new communities will pop up around new domains.

Coding only came into being 70 years ago. It's not some fundamental human institution.

We're all just going to have to adapt. The wheel turns.

Without the question, they might have never called. But because they called, we usually ended up just talking about other things too. Life. Girls. Work.

I rarely get calls like that anymore. It breaks my heart.

For the last few years, me and my friend have been working on a toy problem together. It's a problem that the most recent wave of LLMs can almost certainly solve and probably even one-shot. We now realize that no one's going to read our paper if we ever decide to publish our work. But we still use our weekly meetings to talk about things and make little progress here and there, come up with new questions, etc. It's bittersweet.

At least in the US this is something that's been dissolving for a long time. The rugged individualist thing has been around forever but it seems to be getting stronger and stronger. The internet itself really seemed to kill a lot of local communities, which at first wasn't terrible but has web 2.0 and social media commercialized our attention the platforms were no longer about connecting. Then add in all the disruptions of bots and trolls that are faceless and unrelenting on the net it's not terribly surprising that AI invaded so easily.

The assembly community is not thriving, and an arithmetic community is not a thing.

It’s a lacking metaphor, sure. But it points to how these processes have happened many times before.

The author disses these new concepts as “shallower”, but in reality they reality they’re just newer.

What they consider deep discussion of compilers (as if that’s a big part of software engineering and not a niche that interested 0.01% of them) is the result of decades of building the field.

Will AIs build a deeper field or act differently, I do not know. But it feels like the author is mostly discussing the current state of the world, and to me that states feels as if it’s just a repeat of history.

> In this post, I argue that individual intellectual activity can only be sustained in an intellectual community of other humans. AI dissolves these communities, which in turn makes private intellectual activity rarer.

I know now that it will be joyful to read it all.

Nowadays you ask all of that to codex/claude. And it works. It’s a regression. I don’t mind spending 2h helping a colleague debugging an issue. It’s fun, it creates bonds and we both benefit from it (ofc my employer would think it’s a waste of time, but I couldn’t care less about what executive millionaires think)

Recently, I'm in a context with extremely talented people I respect and want to impress to some extent. The difference is night and day

This on the other hand has actually kind of swayed me over? I think it's still a massive net-benefit for society but I resonated a lot with the author's feelings and I want to understand how to cope with them myself, perhaps by joining groups of people who are still interested in pure software (which AI is a part of now).

The -30IQ line in particular reminded me of DHH's ramblings on Twitter the past few days.

-fewer people are asking questions because they’re asking AI instead or AI obviates the question by solving the challenge immediately.

-Asking a question is less likely to get you good answers because fewer people know the answers (or give you an AI response you could’ve generated yourself)

In reality, we are programmed to compete and produce and climb the social hierarchy. Intellectual achievement and its use as a delineator in society is not going away anytime soon. Your blog post is active, living proof of this.

It's just shifting... likely to more and more things that signal "hey, this was definitely not produced by AI" such as the lack of capitalization of sentences which has caught on.

There is admittedly a bit of skill to use these tools, but they’re really not hard to use. For the most part Claude can decipher my typo’d-to-hell prompt and figure out what I want, and even if it gets it wrong the first time I can usually correct it. The hardest part is determining some objective test for Claude Code to test against and “anchor” it, but I still think that’s easier than writing a bunch of unit and integration tests.

I like these tools; I think Claude Code is very useful and even if I didn’t like it I would still use it because it’s clear that’s where the world is headed and I want to stay competitive.

For personal projects I actually care about, I still write code by hand. I do think I write better code than Claude but I would still do it by hand even if I didn’t, just because I realized I was losing my intuition about software because I was outsourcing to Claude for everything.

There are plenty of things that I am honestly fine losing my intuition with. I don’t really derive much enjoyment from reading dmesg logs, and I am more than happy to let a robot have its fun with that, but it can take the mathey shit from my cold dead hands now.

1) Be at the top of applying AI. The frontier overestimates of how able the average person is of applying what’s possible now. I would hope that with my software I can make money for a couple of more years. I constantly test my ideas on how far I can scale them through AI and what angles could be not as easily replicated. I’m aware that the average knowledge is catching up and I’m not faster. One could argue that also the expectation of how a software works gets higher. So users have lower attention spans want customized landing pages and UX needs to be more visual intuitive. So part of the gain in downstream benefitting users.

2) You can argue very long about 1) and I have arguments for both sides. So far it works for me and the numbers are on my side, however on the other side my plan B or 2) in this case is getting ready for life outside. I’m going in front of the camera I’m improving my talking skills I’m try to learn to build things. If you want if all knowledge work is gone. It’s literally entertainment, work with your body, serving or selling. I personally like entertainment most of that.

I’ve been trying to predict and I’ve changed my mind often, so now I’m just saying I don’t really know how the world’s gonna change.

I feel like you can write a parody of this for every lower->higher level language change that's happened throughout history. I know LLMs are bigger change than going from ASM->C but it rhymes, at least to me. And I've never liked C, I've used pointers a handful of times in college and then thankfully never had to think about it again. I work in higher-level languages and that's not a thing I need to concern myself with.

I'm sure that statement will encourage name calling by some people or gasps in horror by people who work in C or similar languages but I've never enjoyed them. I find technology, computers, and program languages all fascinating and enjoy learning the history of it. I enjoy things like the Crash Bandicoot blog series talking about all the tricks they had to do to get the game to run on underpowered hardware and a SDK that didn't know what it wanted to be (my own re-wording) but I don't pine to go back to those days.

I see LLMs as just a step up the stack and making it easier for more people to create. Will it create a loss of parts of the art of programming? Undoubtedly. But I imagine there is a long list of people who used to be really good at some aspect of programming that a higher-level language removed the need for, that happens. This is happening on a _much_ larger scale, no doubt but it's the same concept.

> We care, and we should care, about contributing to the world. And if technology makes our contributions superfluous, then what is left?

It's made a specific aspect of our contributions (the actual writing of the code) superfluous but it hasn't removed all the other contributions. Maybe you all are using better models than I am (doubtful, I'm using Claude too) but "Idea -> Implementation" is much faster but "Implementation -> Polished Version" still takes a human (for now), at least in my experience. The LLM still writes the code to get to a polished state but there are tons of little UI/UX things it does badly and needs my guidance on. And, more importantly, writing code was never the hardest part of my job really, it was things like taking requests from the business side and turning them working code. The LLM makes parts of that easier for sure. I love being able to brainstorm and kick ideas around so easily or knock out a POC in an afternoon. However, there is still plenty of "human work" that needs done. I'm sure this will shift further, nothing is ever "settled", but when that happens I'll be looking at the next layer of problems I can solve.

I like solving problems, and yes, the LLM has taken away a whole slew of problems that I used to have to solve myself but I still see an unending ocean of problems to address that will satisfy me the same way writing code used it.

Semi-related: I believe so many people are writing "Software Factories" because it's the "next" problem to solve. Many of us looked up one level in the stack and said, "cool, now that the code is handled, how can I automate/improve the pipelines around that". I feel like as an industry there are many of us who effectively have been working to automate our jobs further, at least as a "background process" in our day-to-day, all along. Now we have a different part of that workflow to automate.

If you believe this, you're in for a wild ride someday.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AMqNG5KGaA&t=1s

But it's still possible and useful to contribute (or to contribute to) complex well tested programs, that are just not reproducible in a weekend by a LLM.

Also organizing projects maybe in a form that makes them easy to reliably customize and extend by a LLM, if that's how the people will interact with open SW development in the future, may also be something useful.

Though I dunno what "complex" will mean in the future, if LLM can at the moment already write state of the art well tested C23 compliant re-targetable C compiler for various 16/8-bit MCUs, along with SW simulators, along with timing exact system verilog IP cores, for 5 different architectures, in two weekends on a cheap $100/mo. plan and it all just works. :) It's going to be hard.

I really don't get how you could miss this one, but I should have empathy -- he's presumably one of today's 10,000. But jeez... blaming "open source software isn't compensated" and "blogs are bad, now" on AI is just... yeah.

Almost nobody cares about intellectual activity. Not now, not before AI. People only care about status. That's all. The people who care about intellectual stuff are islands nowadays. They are all alone.

The wheels are in motion and there's pretty much nothing we can do to stop them.

AI is a gun. Pulling the prompt trigger takes 99% of the effort out of the daily grind - point, shoot, reload.

Once the gun arrives, everyone that needs to kill is getting at least one gun. Use of the old knife, arrow, sword, etc. is downgraded from life skill to sport. The discipline remains intact, but just the parts needed to understand how it all is supposed to work remain useful. Nobody is getting paid to hunt with a sharp stick. Replace that stick with a rifle, and you've still got something.

When AI allows you to think less about the how in software, every minute you save is a minute you can spend literally anywhere else. You aren't limited. There is no obligation to remain within the realm of software. You can use your saved time to watch a movie, read a book, or maybe dream of electric sheep. Whatever it is, there are no rules, and you get to choose.

So if you feel a loss of community from the advent of AI, you're completely free to find some other community which fulfills that same need for you. For me personally, AI has allowed me to focus much more on the design side of software, rather than the technical details. That's really meaningful for me, and it makes so that among my fellow design people, I've never had more community.

Anybody can do the same. Or maybe, you can find another outlet that suits you. The point is, you get to choose.

To put this in familiar economics terms, you can't treat your time like a sunk effort. Rather, you have to think of the opportunity cost, and ask yourself "what is the next best thing I could be doing with my time?"