Leaving intel? That’s one case where an employee won’t get chastised for

A houseplant with tiny turtles for leaves… very informative if under the influence of some substances.

It’s not a Hello World equivalent.

So much around generative ai seems to be around “look how unrealistic you can be for not-cheap! Ai - cocaine for your machine!!”

No wonder there’s very little uptake by businesses (MIT state of ai 2025, etc)

Makes no sense to sell their entire position on a key infrastructure player, if you’re going all in on ai. That’s very odd.

this is not practical or desirable in my view: de-google, de-apple, de-meta, de-aws etc etc etc

What next, become stone masons? nah, that's too corporate, pick berries instead ;)

Come on, what happened to moderation, discipline and planning? How about use what you need, hedge your risks (mix providers, products), be more proactive than reactive to demands for consumption?

>> doing, or is it about getting things done

Who says the thing is done? there is a massive danger now, with the sheer amount of complexity & speed brought by ai, in that it's increasingly harder to verify / do proof-of-work.

>> AI allows me to realize my ideas

sure for a personal/pet project. however, when working for a customer/client, they've ideas, needs, wants and usually have their own users and shareholders to satisfy - need proof.

>> lighting up the gas-powered street lights

ok, no this metaphor may well be loved by ai companies, but doesn't actual work in so many levels. For one, ai (as actually provided) is not electricity or a physical system, a brain, or a mind, it's software (I use it v-selectively). Second, the job being done (lighting, or coding) is ultimately to produce / output the desired outcome for whoever ordered it - a solution to a problem - failing that it's just work and wages for the worker but no effective solution (lighting the dark side of the moon, kinda).

I agree with the OP, as system complexity went up, so does the ability to keep up.