This is day. 337.
principal artifact confusion
of a speaking with someone who might have literally had stars in their eyes. He was glowing with enthusiasm over his Newfound ability to develop complex software using an AI coding tool.
He waxed prophetic predicting the immediate death of the software development world as we know it.
This new technology was a revolution and pretty soon even my grandmother will be Vibe coding her own SAS tools.
I could not help it. I immediately made a connection to my mind to the Nike free movement Circa 2004 you might remember this especially if you are a runner the hype around barefoot running was everywhere due in large part to a few books that were written on the subject of long distance Runners from indigenous tribes that did remarkably well with minimalist Footwear.
I remember almost the exact conversation I had about AI code I had about a adding but in this situation The Starry Eyed young man was talking about his new Vibram Five Finger shoes.
I'm sure you remember these shoes the gloves that you would put on your feet and run around in them.
In 2001 Nike designer tobie Hatfield and other members of the Nike Innovation team visited Stanford and watched code vinyl's track athletes running Barefoot on the grass.
Hatfield asked why lanata told him that he believed the practice gradually strengthened The Athlete's Feet made them less injury-prone and therefore allowed them to tolerate more training.
Hatfield later described that as Nikes aha moment.
There's an important distinction here though. The key Concept in the training was gradual.
Lenana was not apparently telling his athletes shoes are bad throw them away.
This also was not a concept. This also was not a New Concept.
barefoot running and minimalist training had existed among serious Runners for decades
There was a key principle at play.
Don't let the equipment do so much work that the body loses the ability to do the work itself.
The principle being deployed by the Stanford running team is an anal is analogous to a team of expert software developers to start to incorporate new AI coding tools into the practice.
The Stanford practice might have been normal training plus carefully carefully dosed Barefoot work on soft surfaces with conditioned athletes under coaching supervision.
Unfortunately Nikes big moment became the following natural running is better buy these shoes and run naturally.
Now a Nike is the fence they had actually built progression into their advertising. They created a free number scale that would help you slowly migrate from conventional shoes to toward and progress towards Barefoot. This is not what happened though the same this is the same reason why nobody actually buys the Gatorade Gatorade drinks for pre.
during and post workouts either
the result from Nike's campaign was disastrous a runner who spent 20 years in conventional shoes had muscles tendons movement patterns adapted accordingly put that Runner suddenly into a flexible low Drop shoe. And suddenly you were changing where the stress occurs the injury data that poured in was not good.
What Stanford had learned is that the human foot benefits from being strong and allowed to move that knowledge became a conclusion held by the running community that cushioning support conventional shoes and existing training principles are wrong.
We have the same phenomenon happening today with AI coding tools.
Experienced Engineers use things like abstraction modularity tests Source control code review architectural boundaries debugging discipline iterative development AI coding tools observe an automate fragments those practices, but not the entire thing.
Then the the industry starts behaving as though the tool itself has replaced the need for all these underlying engineering disciplines.
AI can automate parts of the software engineering process certainly the danger begins when we mistake those automated parts for software engineering itself.
I call this principle artifact confusion and this occurs when a sophisticated practice is reduced to one visible component that component is then productized and eventually the product is mistaken for the principal that made the original practice successful.
When new technology arrives, there is a tendency to abandon basic principles far too quickly.
Novelty makes us believe that the old rules no longer apply. We invent new terminology new processes new org structures and sometimes entirely new philosophies for problems. We already know how to solve.
AI does not eliminate the fundamentals of running a good business good data still matters clear ownership still matters security still matters customers still matter measuring your outcomes absolutely matter and good management is still a thing a bad process does not become a good process simply because an AI agent is performing it.
Before we before asking what AI can change make sure that the underlying business principles are sound technology should amplify good fundamentals not provide an excuse to abandon them all together.
principal artifact confusion
of a speaking with someone who might have literally had stars in their eyes. He was glowing with enthusiasm over his Newfound ability to develop complex software using an AI coding tool.
He waxed prophetic predicting the immediate death of the software development world as we know it.
This new technology was a revolution and pretty soon even my grandmother will be Vibe coding her own SAS tools.
I could not help it. I immediately made a connection to my mind to the Nike free movement Circa 2004 you might remember this especially if you are a runner the hype around barefoot running was everywhere due in large part to a few books that were written on the subject of long distance Runners from indigenous tribes that did remarkably well with minimalist Footwear.
I remember almost the exact conversation I had about AI code I had about a adding but in this situation The Starry Eyed young man was talking about his new Vibram Five Finger shoes.
I'm sure you remember these shoes the gloves that you would put on your feet and run around in them.
In 2001 Nike designer tobie Hatfield and other members of the Nike Innovation team visited Stanford and watched code vinyl's track athletes running Barefoot on the grass.
Hatfield asked why lanata told him that he believed the practice gradually strengthened The Athlete's Feet made them less injury-prone and therefore allowed them to tolerate more training.
Hatfield later described that as Nikes aha moment.
There's an important distinction here though. The key Concept in the training was gradual.
Lenana was not apparently telling his athletes shoes are bad throw them away.
This also was not a concept. This also was not a New Concept.
barefoot running and minimalist training had existed among serious Runners for decades
There was a key principle at play.
Don't let the equipment do so much work that the body loses the ability to do the work itself.
The principle being deployed by the Stanford running team is an anal is analogous to a team of expert software developers to start to incorporate new AI coding tools into the practice.
The Stanford practice might have been normal training plus carefully carefully dosed Barefoot work on soft surfaces with conditioned athletes under coaching supervision.
Unfortunately Nikes big moment became the following natural running is better buy these shoes and run naturally.
Now a Nike is the fence they had actually built progression into their advertising. They created a free number scale that would help you slowly migrate from conventional shoes to toward and progress towards Barefoot. This is not what happened though the same this is the same reason why nobody actually buys the Gatorade Gatorade drinks for pre.
during and post workouts either
the result from Nike's campaign was disastrous a runner who spent 20 years in conventional shoes had muscles tendons movement patterns adapted accordingly put that Runner suddenly into a flexible low Drop shoe. And suddenly you were changing where the stress occurs the injury data that poured in was not good.
What Stanford had learned is that the human foot benefits from being strong and allowed to move that knowledge became a conclusion held by the running community that cushioning support conventional shoes and existing training principles are wrong.
We have the same phenomenon happening today with AI coding tools.
Experienced Engineers use things like abstraction modularity tests Source control code review architectural boundaries debugging discipline iterative development AI coding tools observe an automate fragments those practices, but not the entire thing.
Then the the industry starts behaving as though the tool itself has replaced the need for all these underlying engineering disciplines.
AI can automate parts of the software engineering process certainly the danger begins when we mistake those automated parts for software engineering itself.
I call this principle artifact confusion and this occurs when a sophisticated practice is reduced to one visible component that component is then productized and eventually the product is mistaken for the principal that made the original practice successful.
When new technology arrives, there is a tendency to abandon basic principles far too quickly.
Novelty makes us believe that the old rules no longer apply. We invent new terminology new processes new org structures and sometimes entirely new philosophies for problems. We already know how to solve.
AI does not eliminate the fundamentals of running a good business good data still matters clear ownership still matters security still matters customers still matter measuring your outcomes absolutely matter and good management is still a thing a bad process does not become a good process simply because an AI agent is performing it.
Before we before asking what AI can change make sure that the underlying business principles are sound technology should amplify good fundamentals not provide an excuse to abandon them all together.
