Corporate lobby should be treated as bribing the politicians.

In ideal world (where we don't live), some of the primary goals of corporations and governments contradict to each other (and there is another body):

* Corporations - maximum profit at all cost to its shareholders

* Government (I mean the ideal one) - prosperity for its citizens

* UN - prosperity for the world (because governments can achieve prosperity for own citizens by exploiting other government citizens)

When they have contradictory goals, lower in the chain should not drastically impact the higher body's goals.

Corporate lobby is doing it, hence US is moving towards feudal system. Because corporations wants to exploit people at maximum speed and squeeze everything, but do not want to take the responsibility for nurturing the people.

Here is how it looks like:

    * You hire Sr eng, squeeze max out of them, lay them off
    * Demand government to have better education, so it can squeeze out next
    * Stop unionization at all costs
    * now we are seeing this with Junior positions, no one wants to nurture and grow them, everyone wants Sr+ engineers

Isn't it great news for us?

You get an open model which is a 95% of Opus 4.6 quality and 80% cheaper in most inference providers and also can run on your own hardware

Also they did the hard parts of:

* crawling the content

* running the fine tuning (or training)

Better than 1 or 2 companies taking control of the whole AI economy

Because this is Microsoft, experimenting and failing is not encouraged, taking less risky bets and getting promoted is. Also no customer asked them to have 1-bit model, hence PM didn't prioritize it.

But it doesn't mean, idea is worthless.

You could have said same about Transformers, Google released it, but didn't move forward, turns out it was a great idea.

As a Level 6,

I am feeling like to go back to Level 5.

Level 6 helps with fixing bugs, but adding a new feature in a scalable way is not working out for me, I feed bunch of documents and ask it to analyze and come up with a solution.

1. It misses some details from docs when summarizing

2. It misses some details from code and its architecture, especially in multi-repo Java projects (annotations, 100 level inheritance is making it confuse a lot)

3. Then comes up with obvious (non) "solution" which is based on incorrect context summaries.

I don't think I can give full autonomy to these things yet.

But then, I wonder, people on Level 8, why don't they create bunch of clones of games, SaaS vendors and start making billions

If Seniors are going to review every GenAI generated code, how do they keep up with the volume of changes?

So you have 2 systems of engineers: Sr- and Sr+

1. Both should write code to justify their work and impact

2. Sr- code must be reviewed by Sr+

What happens:

a. Sr+ output drops because review takes their time more and more

b. Sr+ just blindly accepts because of the volume is too high, and they should also do their own work

c. Sr+ asks Sr- to slow-down, then Sr- can get bad reviews for the output, because on average Sr+ will produce more code

I think (b) will happen