The AI Software Baby Boom

I like to joke with people that vibe coding (using AI to assist writing software) is like having sex. It's really fun but there's always a chance that you'll make a baby that you'll have to take care of for the next 18 years. This is not an argument against vibe coding. I've read the arguments against vibe coding and they sound a little contrived, more self-protection, like the senior dev bashing a talented, productive junior dev; something like "Yes, but they don't know X, Y, Z." Sounds like fear.  

I've had the experience of developing software over the last several decades. I loved providing solutions to solve peoples problems with software. I loved seeing users get excited because they now could do things that were difficult or impossible.

Recently, I had the experience of vibe coding. I love being able to focus on the high level features of the software and not get caught in the weeds of implementation. I think this AI-assisted software generation is going to be a true baby boom. People on the front lines of business and science being able to write software that helps them do their jobs better and faster! I can hear the wheels of industry churning as people imagine new software solutions.

But, like I said earlier, writing software is like having a baby. At first, they are cute and cuddly, but then they become more demanding. If you're not careful, those babies can consume your life. How does this apply to software?

You have a task you do on a regular basis, or maybe a new business opportunity for an app or webpage. You use the latest AI tools and make an app. Instantly, it's doing your work for you and enabling you in new ways. You realize more features you want, so a little prompt here and there and magically they appear. Your software keeps growing and suddenly becomes a bit complicated. Nothing that another prompt can't fix. "Help me rearchitect my software for all the cool new stuff we've added." You have to be smart with your prompts to make sure all of your new features play nicely.

Then there's the sharing with others. You think others will want this. Maybe they'll pay for it! So you find a way to start sharing it. They start asking for new features or want you to tweak old ones. Some of the tweak requests conflict with each other. People complain about a change in the interface. They have problems and want tech support. You need marketing, sales, and support departments. You might be able to provide these with AI agents. Meanwhile, you've had 10 other ideas and created 10 new "babies". Not only that, but there's a 100 million people that also had 10 new "babies". That's a billion new software projects that need to be nourished. Most of these probably do the same thing and could probably be replaced with a few hundred apps. If you wanted to evaluate other software, you might have a million options for the "read my email and give me a summary of stuff I should pay attention to" app. But AI can evaluate the million apps for you. Or can it? Has AI started getting overwhelmed yet with being the developer, researcher, and therapist for millions of people?

Here's another challenge. I've written hundreds of applications. Many of them died a sad death. Some of them were inherited as I move off onto other projects or to other companies. Inevitably someone comes to me to ask me about my software...even after I've left the company. Or, even worse, I've had to go in and look at my software. What was I doing? Why did I do this? How did this ever work? I feel like the dead beat dad that neglects his kids. 

And what about the evolving tech stack. First, it's version updates as older versions are no longer supported. Look at the status of Python versions, where the rate of new versions and rate of end-of-life versions is about one per year. Not a problem, we just tell our AI to refactor to the new version. But first we need to install the new versions and update all of our modules. And then there is the actual change in technology. Dynamic web applications have gone through Java Servlets, Flash, Angular, React, etc, etc. And what about UX. Does it matter that the cool app you made looks outdated? 

With the AI-Assisted Baby Boom, another problem is that your friends will be too busy taking care of their software babies and not have enough time to play Pickleball or Tennis or grab a coffee. Hopefully, this doesn't happen. Hopefully, people will realize how being more productive means that they can spend less time working. Only the future will tell.

Are We Fooling Ourselves? Heuristics and Logic

I've noticed a few things lately. 

• People are quick to say wise sounding assertions. 
• People are quick to accept wise sounding ideas.

It goes like this. "You know what the problem with our city/state/country/world is? We just need to focus on diet or exercise or education or home affordability or a stronger military or clean energy or space exploration or "real" democracy or strong leadership or less (or more) of something."

Then, a bunch of people (including me) nod our heads in agreement. Why is that?

We are energy conserving machines. Our brains make up 2% of our body weight but use 20% of our metabolic energy. Even with that much of an energy budget, we can't let our brains go limitless. There's too much for our brains to do. Each day we make thousands of decisions. Most of those decisions have to be quick. So we create heuristics or mental shortcuts: "Meatless Monday", "Taco Tuesday", "TGIF", "No pain, no gain", "Trust the process". 

How often do we use heuristics? 90-95% of the time. 

But heuristics fail us. Your partner asks you to buy milk on your way home. You come home empty handed. "Where's the milk?" You reply, "I was hungry and you know they always say, 'Never go grocery shopping when you're hungry'?" This is a ridiculous example, but not too different from the last time a heuristic caused a conflict in my life. Am I the only one? Think about it.

The solution, you think, is good old logical reasoning. You come up with premises and make an argument. 

• "All dogs like to eat. All cats like to eat. Therefore, dogs are cats." 

Oops, that's not logically valid. So let's make another logically valid argument. 

• "All cats are animals. All animals like to swim. Therefore, all cats like to swim". 

Oops again. The premise "all animals like to swim" isn't always true. We need "all" of the premises need to be true.

The problem we have is that few things in life fit nicely into a simple syllogism. There's always an edge case or exception to the rule. Many arguments are really just heuristics dressed up in fancy clothes. They are shortcuts. 

Even Newton's Law, as perfect as it is, fails under relativistic conditions. 

So what do you do? How can you not fool yourself? Read my Intellectual Vision: Four Truths and the Eightfold Path

 “Whatever I say — you can sell it as wisdom. You say whatever — that can be wisdom. You can say ‘what matters is today’ — that’s wisdom. Or you can say ‘what matters is eternity’ — that’s also wisdom. In our ideological universe, the form ‘this is what matters’ is immediately consumed as a piece of wisdom.” -- Slavoj Žižek 

Critical Thinking with AI

 You just finished a session with ChatGPT (or your favorite LLM) and you've never felt more empowered. Not only do you feel like an expert in your new area of inquiry, but AI has affirmed that you are unique/clever/insightful/etc.!

Then you read a headline that says AI is degrading our critical thinking skills. How can that be? Don't you feel more intelligent?

This is how I use AI to help with my critical thinking skills (just some ideas). During (or after a learning session, ask:

• "What are some things that I haven't thought about? Do I have any blind spots?"
• "How might I be wrong in the conclusions I have come to?"
• "What biases do I have that may be preventing me from considering all of the facts?"
• "Is there anything that you (the AI) may be missing or be inaccurate about?"

Basically, challenge yourself and challenge the AI. I use ChatGPT primarily, but I also cross check with Perplexity, Grok, and Gemini. Today, a friend told me that he trusts Claude more certain tasks. I find that each has it's strengths and I'm learning which I can trust more. But I have to be careful that I don't select an AI for a topic because of my own confirmation bias.

Be careful to avoid "paralysis by analysis." What I mean, is that you do a critical review of some information which results in more information. Then you do a critical review of the critical review. Now you feel confused and depressed, as though you can never know the truth. I prefer discovering a limited number of blind spots. This can help your confidence in the sense of widening your understanding without unraveling your mental model.

Of course, you can also ask your preferred AI to help you understand the concepts behind Critical Thinking and even ask it to help you develop Critical Thinking skills.

Example 1 - Healing Back Pain

In 2014, I read the book "Healing Back Pain" by Dr. John Sarno and it helped resolved pain I was experiencing at the time. I've been having shoulder pain for the last 2 years, so I asked ChatGPT, "Can this book help shoulder pain as well as back pain?" It confirmed that it could and I started reading it again. Some red flags were going off about some of Dr. Sarno's claims, so I inquired "Can you provide a critical review of the book Healing Back Pain by John Sarno?" I then asked "Is there a better, more current book related to pain management?" I got several suggestions, and asked follow-up questions. The resulting suggestion was "The Way Out", which I just read. I found it more helpful and I'm trying the things I learned. I still feel there is some validity to Dr. Sarno's claims, but "The Way Out" gives me another way to frame my pain. (NOTE: I just asked for a critical review of "The Way Out" which resulted in me adding the "Be careful..." line above.)

The Worth of $100: A Metaphor for How We Our Lives

 You have three options:

• $100 cash
• $100 worth of stock in a strong, growing company
• A lottery ticket that cost $100, but worth millions if you win.

The benefit of the cash is you can use it instantly for anything you want. The disadvantage is that holding onto it decreases its value due to inflation.

The benefit of stock is that historically it increases in value faster than inflation. The disadvantage is that you don't get any immediate benefit from it.

The benefit of a lottery ticket is that if you win, it is infinitely more valuable than any of the other options. The disadvantage is that the chances of winning are basically zero.

What in your life do you treat like cash, like stock, or like a lottery?

I think that the company of another person is like cash. I'm going to engage with that person; put away or turn of the screens, face them eye-to-eye, and enjoy their company.

I think that hard work is like a stock. I'm making the sacrifice now to learn and build sweat equity. I do it because I'm confident it will pay off in the future.

I think a lottery ticket is like a promise of a perfect, peaceful future. Appealing. Tempting. But there's no way for me to know if it can or will happen.

Abortion: Nature or Nurture?

The Numbers

 Here are some approximate numbers related to human reproduction.

Women

• 1 million - The number of eggs a woman is born with.
• 400,000 - The number of eggs left by the time she reaches puberty.
• 400 - The number of eggs released for ovulation over her lifetime.
• 6 - The average number of eggs that get fertilized.
• 3 - The average number of eggs that become a person.

Nature vs. Women

• 99.9% of unfertilized eggs are discarded or reabsorbed (from the time of puberty).
• 50% of fertilized eggs (embryos) are lost (most before the woman knows she's pregnant).
• 10-20% of known pregnancies end in miscarriage.

Men

• Over 500 billion - The number of sperm each man produces in his lifetime.
• 8,700 - Number of ejaculations in his lifetime (Link).
• 80 - 300 million - The number of sperm per ejaculation.
• 6 billion - The approximate number of sperm it takes to make a baby (78 ejaculations).
• 3 - The average number of a man's sperm that become a person.

Nature vs. Man

• 99.99999998% of sperm that are sent on a life-making mission end up dead.

Women vs. Nature

• 360 - The number of eggs not fertilized due to birth control.
• 20% of pregnancies are aborted by the woman's choice (1-3% due to advice from a doctor).

Man vs. Nature

• 99% of sperm are wasted, not making a baby (due to birth control or masturbation)
• Man friendly calculation. Only 8,622 sperm are wasted since only one sperm would is prevented from doing it's job, the rest would have been wasted anyways. That's only 0.0000017% wasted.

Conclusion

• Nature wastes more eggs than women do by a ratio of 1,000-to-1 (I'll admit that this is a lame statistic since so many of these eggs never had a chance).
• Nature aborts more embryos than women do by a ratio of 2.5-to-1.
• Man wastes more sperm than nature by a ratio of 25-to-1
• Calculation: Only 3 sperm are needed to make his 3 babies, so nature wastes 3 x 6 = 18 billion. The rest of his 500 billion sperm, or 500 - 18 = 482 billion, are wasted by the man.

Bonus Material

Other parties that try to have a say in the nature vs nurture battle.

• 1-3% of abortions were recommended by doctors for the woman's health.
• 12 states have total abortion bans.
• Female legislators are significantly underrepresented (~22%) in states with total abortion bans.
• 21 states protect abortion.
• Women make up about 40% of the legislature in states with abortion protection.
• Abortion Opinions
• 8-13% of Americans are against abortion in any circumstance.
• 36% of Americans are against abortion in most circumstances.
• Most opposition to abortion is due to religious beliefs.
• Birth Control Opinions
• 9-11% of Americans are opposed to birth control.
• Most opposition to birth control is due to religious beliefs.
• Wasted sperm is a sin like abortion, according to the Catholic and other conservative Christian churches.
• Bloggers write about abortion when they don't have the expertise (hey, that hurt!).

Spending or Revenue Problem

 Imagine two people. Friends of yours. Maybe a family member.

The first person has maxed out all of their credit cards. They don’t have an extravagant lifestyle. They have a modest car and apartment. But they did opt for two bedrooms for when friends or family come to visit. The rent is higher, and with their car payment, they have to use the credit card to make ends meet. And it’s not like they went crazy with their card. I mean, when their best friend has a destination wedding, they had to go and their only choice was to put it on the card. And they had to go to that concert! Their favorite artist NEVER comes to town and they saved thousands of dollars by not having travel expenses. Every charge can be justified: the gym membership, Netflix, Uber Eats (they were too sick to make anything), Starbucks, the latest iPhone (they broke their old phone in a freak accident), etc.

Question: Would you say they had a spending problem or revenue problem?

The second person doesn’t even have a credit card. Well, they have one, but only for emergencies. They live in a basement apartment, if you can call it that. It’s more like a bathroom with a bed in it. They get around on a used bike they fixed up and public transportation. They make their own food; mostly dishes with rice, beans, or potatoes. If they’re in a hurry, they’ll splurge with Top Ramen, though they bought it in bulk and got a good deal because it was expired. They have a very old phone that is embarrassingly slow.

Question: Does this person have a spending problem or a revenue problem?

Now, you have the opportunity to give $100 per month extra, divided however you deem fair. Who will benefit from the $100 extra the most? The first person is living with a deficit, surely they need it most?

While both people have a revenue problem, the spending problem of the first person concerns you that the extra money may not help. I would argue that the spending problem needs to be addressed before they get help with the revenue.

Solving a Mystery

The maid moves from dusting the furniture to cleaning the windows, and briefly focuses beyond the smudges on the window. She screams when she sees the body of her employer, John Bywater, floating face down in the backyard pool. Inspectors Rectus and Sumere are called to the scene.

Sumere: What an unfortunate accident! 

Rectus: We can't assume it was an accident. 

Sumere: There's an empty bottle of alcohol by his towel. Clearly, he was drunk and passed out, drowning.

Rectus: The maid said Mr. Bywater swam laps every morning. There is no glass, and the empty bottle has no lip marks. Actually, the empty bottle has no residue inside. She did say she heard an argument earlier, and when she looked outside, she saw the neighbor, Mr. Adstat, pointing his finger at the deceased with a threatening look on his face.

Sumere: So, Mr. Bywater was murdered by Mr. Adstat!

Rectus: We can't know that. I spoke with Mr. Adstat, and he was very shocked and upset to find out about the death. He was angry because Mr. Bywater was supposed to invest his money, but never got the confirmation. The result was Mr. Adstat missing out on an opportunity to make a lot of money.

Sumere: It must be a family member then.

Rectus: Mr. Bywater has no family. He's an only child, a bachelor, and both of his parents have passed away. We need to speak with his business partner, Paul Avara, who was recently accused of embezzling from their firm's brokerage account. Mr. Bywater was going to testify before a grand jury today.

Sumere: Then Paul Avara must be the murderer!

Rectus: Apparently, Mr. Bywater was going to testify that his partner was innocent. It wouldn't make sense for Paul to kill him.

Sumere: Well, we need a suspect to solve this crime. I'm going to find as much dirt as I can on Mr. Avara. If he's going before a grand jury, there has to be something.

Rectus [Rolling his eyes]: I think that's a dead end. I'm going to investigate some other leads.

-- Later --

Rectus: I found some useful information.

Sumere: So did I! Paul Avara has quite a past. He has been divorced several times and has a sizable alimony burden. He has a DUI that he's still fighting. His uncle is currently serving time for money laundering. Apparently, Paul worked with his uncle before joining up with Bywater. The empty alcohol bottle was for a label that Paul was trying to bring into their investment portfolio. So, Paul was in the backyard, by the pool.

Rectus: None of that matters.

Sumere: What do you mean! Paul Avara is a scumbug who deserves to be punished!

Rectus: Sounds like he's already being punished. 

Sumere: Why did you say "none of that matters?"

Rectus: The maid said the bottle had been out by the pool for several days. Paul brought it over when they were having a business meeting. But that doesn't even matter. The autopsy showed that Bywater suffered a heart attack when he was swimming laps. 

Sumere: No, no, that was no accident. I'm sure Paul gave him something. He caused the heart attack. I'm sure of it. 

Rectus: We found security footage that shows Bywater grabbing his chest, flailing in the water, and then just stopping.

Sumere: That sounds awful! All the more reason for Avara to pay for it!

Rectus: The coroner said the toxicology report showed nothing. Bywater had preexisting conditions, became dehydrated, and had an electrolyte imbalance.

Sumere: I bet Avara knew about the preexisting conditions. He just needed to push him over the edge.

Rectus: How could Avara cause an electrolyte imbalance? That is caused by not taking something.

Sumere: I'm sure there are ways. We just need to find them.