An aspect of this I find interesting is that previously effort was a reasonably good barrier to making something new. If a feature/library existed someone cared enough to put the work in to make it exist.
Now it’s just a question of tokens. The presentation/feature list is no sign of effort or caring. So we get limitless new shiny things to try and filter through
It’s possibly a good thing in disguise. Maybe it will make software dev finally more inclined to focus on tested and true technologies rather than chasing trendy novelty stuff.
(Oh, who am I kidding, it’s AI that do tech decisions now and they choose whatever stuff that’s overrepresented in their training data, or just NIH stuff, which has inexplicably become a virtue, like measuring progress by lines of code spent has become. )
This is just a rebranding of novelty bias to make it seem like a new idea
There's a meta-recursion there that's kinda funny innit
Novelty bias is soooo 2025
cant wait till fads are retro again
An aspect of this I find interesting is that previously effort was a reasonably good barrier to making something new. If a feature/library existed someone cared enough to put the work in to make it exist.
Now it’s just a question of tokens. The presentation/feature list is no sign of effort or caring. So we get limitless new shiny things to try and filter through
It’s possibly a good thing in disguise. Maybe it will make software dev finally more inclined to focus on tested and true technologies rather than chasing trendy novelty stuff.
(Oh, who am I kidding, it’s AI that do tech decisions now and they choose whatever stuff that’s overrepresented in their training data, or just NIH stuff, which has inexplicably become a virtue, like measuring progress by lines of code spent has become. )
Pretty sure bringing up tokens immediately is itself an example of this.
I wonder if this has any relevance at all to a bunch of new stuff that people on HN seem very obsessed over these days.
In boardgame communities, it’s called “Cult of the New”.
[dead]