But I think your point reinforces the point of the article: since what you sell is meaningless, LLMs can be presented as "productive" because the fact they produce no meaningful value is irrelevant in the overall economic dynamic. I worked for a decade as a software developer and pretty much none of the software I wrote ever reached production with a meaningful number of real users. None of it was aimed at solving pre-existing problems. Software quality was only a performance to keep the devs happy. In those scenarios, an LLM would have had the same measure of productivity, because the actual software output was irrelevant: what mattered was marketing, sales, business relationships. For bigger tech companies now, what drives sales is lock-in, not quality, so also there the LLM productivity definition is irrelevant.
The lock-in aspect is also about monopolization, and this is directly tied to the financialization aspect essential to Silicon Valley. We are saying something similar, which is that the business end is revealing how little it cares about production. Software is often written by people who want to make good quality things that actually do something. Eventually people realize that whether it actually does the thing it was supposed to doesn't really matter so long as they say it did and sales can say it does and customers don't notice or complain enough about it for an executive to care. This is because commodity production is completely secondary to obtaining monopoly market position. Lock-in facilitates and maintains this, finance makes it possible by undercutting competitors early-on. Once a monopoly, customer complaints are just a cost to eat via customer service, something that LLMs actually can help with via pat form emails and and phone scripts.
But I think your point reinforces the point of the article: since what you sell is meaningless, LLMs can be presented as "productive" because the fact they produce no meaningful value is irrelevant in the overall economic dynamic. I worked for a decade as a software developer and pretty much none of the software I wrote ever reached production with a meaningful number of real users. None of it was aimed at solving pre-existing problems. Software quality was only a performance to keep the devs happy. In those scenarios, an LLM would have had the same measure of productivity, because the actual software output was irrelevant: what mattered was marketing, sales, business relationships. For bigger tech companies now, what drives sales is lock-in, not quality, so also there the LLM productivity definition is irrelevant.
The lock-in aspect is also about monopolization, and this is directly tied to the financialization aspect essential to Silicon Valley. We are saying something similar, which is that the business end is revealing how little it cares about production. Software is often written by people who want to make good quality things that actually do something. Eventually people realize that whether it actually does the thing it was supposed to doesn't really matter so long as they say it did and sales can say it does and customers don't notice or complain enough about it for an executive to care. This is because commodity production is completely secondary to obtaining monopoly market position. Lock-in facilitates and maintains this, finance makes it possible by undercutting competitors early-on. Once a monopoly, customer complaints are just a cost to eat via customer service, something that LLMs actually can help with via pat form emails and and phone scripts.