Based On True Incidents

The eternal battle between AI evangelists and Unix veterans continues. One side thinks neural networks are magical solutions to everything, while the other knows that most problems can be solved by turning it off and on again. The real intelligence was the force-quit shortcuts we learned along the way.

The classic half-drawn horse meme perfectly captures the AI coding experience. Left side: your meticulously crafted code with proper architecture and thoughtful design. Right side: whatever the hell that AI generated abomination is. Sure, it technically "works" in the same way a stick figure technically resembles a human. Bonus points for the smug little smile on the AI side—it has absolutely no idea how horrifying its creation is, yet it's so damn proud of itself. Just like when you ask ChatGPT to fix your bug and it confidently returns code that would make a CS101 student weep.

Oh, the beautiful irony! Training AI to spew corporate buzzwords and then mistaking that for consciousness is like thinking your parrot understands quantum physics because it can squawk "synergy" and "circle back." Turns out the Turing test is just asking, "Can you use the phrase 'let's take this offline' without actually solving anything?" If meaningless jargon is the benchmark for intelligence, we've been working with artificial intelligence in management for decades!

Oh how the mighty have fallen! Remember when being told your code looks "machine-generated" was a compliment? Now we've come full circle where both human-written AND AI-generated code get thrown in the same dumpster fire. The ultimate burn isn't comparing your code to a rookie's anymore—it's saying it has that distinct "I asked ChatGPT at 2AM and didn't review it" energy. The real tragedy? The garbage collector can't save either one.

Developers spent years mastering their craft, conquering segfaults, memory leaks, and production bugs without breaking a sweat. But then AI code assistants showed up, and suddenly that little green/red diff showing "+61,104 -780" lines becomes absolutely terrifying. Nothing strikes fear into a programmer's heart quite like an AI confidently refactoring your entire codebase in milliseconds. Sure, it removed 780 lines, but at what cost? What eldritch horrors lurk in those 61,104 new lines? Did it just replace your elegant algorithm with 60,000 lines of nested if statements? The real nightmare isn't that AI will replace us—it's that we have to review its pull requests.

The massive tower labeled "ALL MODERN DIGITAL INFRASTRUCTURE" vs. the tiny rectangle labeled "AI" pretty much sums up the current state of tech hype. Billions in VC funding for what's essentially a fancy pattern matcher running on infrastructure built over decades. Yet somehow AI is going to replace us all by Tuesday. Sure thing, buddy. I'll start worrying when it can configure a printer without having an existential crisis.