yeah, this is sad and it applies to most platforms who offer user generated content for money (or ad impressions).
Not only is the quality decreasing, also it hides actual content from writers that care and put work into their articles.
Stopped being my preferred search engine when my company, a big global agency, decided to block all traffic to perplexityity on the company device because they don't allow it's browser to be used. Hilarious.
it's tagged as "rant" and that what it is. And I think he's more concerned about the hype or unethical behaviors, but not actual AI. But I am just guessing...
He as point. And it's probably annyoing because: One wants to post "substantial content" and being acknowledge, but one cannot rise against this "flood" of nonsense.
Question is: What can you do? We can't stop this trend. People are looking for "reach". And you can achieve that using differet approaches. What we experience at LinkedIn is the simplest approach: Spam the system with your AI generated "nonsense" posts, add a selfie and people will follow. It's not even bad content, it's positive content, emotional content, touching content. But first it's way easier to create than writing long technical articles or analysis. And seconds it's easiere to consume - people want short messages.
And it's not only LinkedIN, it's everywhere. Medium, Facebook, you name it.
Sad for everyone trying to communicatae more than just "calendar mottos". But true.
IT is not flawless. Because it's operated by people. I don't know any software company that offers bugfree software with a superb support and an innovative development roadmap.
Every company is, to a certain level, incompetent in IT. Because there is no perfect competency. The bigger the company, the more prominent this incompetency grows. Which misleads to a confirmation or selection biassed opinion, that this specific company is incompetent.
Take that small startup team that just developed a proof-of-concept, minor bugs as usual, small code-base, collecting 100 Mio. venture capital. Next year they grow to 10.000 employees and 100 Mio. customers. What also grows, inevitable, the code base and amount of bugs. At what state and why would you call them "incompetent in IT"?
The problem is not that they are incompetent in IT, the problem is, IMHO, that they not scale their support with their product. Because they can't.
Yes, the process described is nuts. But it's not an IT process, it's a business process. And there it is about cost saving, trying to automate things and keep them secure at the same time. The reason is: They have to take care of hundreds of millions of customers. Eemploying what, 10.000 support personell? Doing simple math here: One support employee covers 10k customers. Impossible.
This happens everywhere in big tech. Accounts get banned, deleted, people loose data and whatever can go wrong. And all you have is - if at all - some anonymous e-mail address, automated answers and generic online documentation.
Problem is not that FAANG is incompetent in IT. It's just not feasible to cover Millions of individual problems if you grow to a certain size.
Quite the opposite. It shows that companies must be able to set priorities once they reach a certain size. If they succeed in doing so, they are successful.
"Feels like" is a subjective measure. For example, Gemini CLI does feel inherently lighter than something like VS Code. But why should it? It's just a chat interface with a different skin.
I'm also not sure whether Gemini CLI is actually better aligned with the context of development environments.
Anyway—slightly off-topic here:
I’m using Gemini CLI in exactly the same way I use VS Code: I type to it. I’ve worked with a lot of agents across different projects—Gemini CLI, Copilot in all its LLM forms, VS Code, Aider, Cursor, Claude in the browser, and so on. Even Copilot Studio and PowerAutomate—which, by the way, is a total dumpster fire.
From simple code completions to complex tasks, using long pre-prompts or one-shot instructions—the difference in interaction and quality between all these tools is minimal. I wouldn’t even call it a meaningful difference. More like a slight hiccup in overall consistency.
What all of these tools still lack, here in year three of the hype: meaningful improvements in coding endurance or quality. None of them truly stand out—at least not yet.
