It Insists Upon Itself

Ah, the ultimate job security plan! Turns out the one person AI won't replace is the colleague who contributes absolutely nothing. That sweet spot where you're so useless that even automation can't justify the ROI of replacing you. It's like finding a bug so bizarre that QA just labels it as "expected behavior" and moves on. The perfect defense against technological unemployment isn't upskilling—it's strategic incompetence!

The eternal developer dilemma of our times! Stack Overflow: where your innocent question gets obliterated with "YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY WRONG" by someone with 500k reputation who's been coding since FORTRAN was cool. Meanwhile, ChatGPT is over there like "YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT" even when you ask if you can solve P=NP with a for loop. The validation we crave vs. the validation we deserve. The digital equivalent of asking your strict professor versus asking your supportive grandma who thinks everything you do is brilliant. Honestly, sometimes being told you're right—even when your code is a flaming dumpster fire—just hits different.

Content THE BUGT"FIED" LAST WEEK SHOWING UP THE SEGOND I FEEL JOY AGAIN

The chart hilariously reveals that GPT-5 scores a whopping 74.9% accuracy on software engineering benchmarks, but the pink bars tell the real story – 52.8% of that is achieved "without thinking" while only a tiny sliver comes from actual "thinking." Meanwhile, OpenAI's o3 and GPT-4o trail behind with 69.1% and 30.8% respectively, with apparently zero thinking involved. It's basically saying these AI models are just regurgitating patterns rather than performing actual reasoning. The perfect metaphor for when your code works but you have absolutely no idea why.

Ah, the classic Medium experience. Shows up all excited with pizza (free articles), only to discover the place is literally on fire with paywalled content, AI garbage, and people yelling at each other about tech stacks. Yet we keep coming back like digital masochists. The "Stop using X" articles are particularly chef's-kiss terrible—written by someone who used the technology for exactly 37 minutes before declaring it "fundamentally broken."

The duality of AI in the development lifecycle is painfully accurate. Junior devs are celebrating like they've discovered fire – "Look ma, no hands!" – while generating code they barely understand. Meanwhile, senior developers stare into the existential void as they're forced to review the AI-generated spaghetti mess. That thousand-yard stare says it all: "I've seen things... terrible things... like nested ternaries and 200-line functions named 'doStuff'." The circle of programming life continues – AI just made the mess arrive faster.