michael-dean-k/

On Monday 6/15, I'm hosting a workshop to kick off a reading group for classic essays: RSVP here.

michael-dean-k/
Michael Dean
michael-dean-k/

Architect-turned-writer, founder of Essay Architecture. Building pattern languages, software, anthologies, and community for essayists.

Essay Club ↗
Recent Essays
#adaptation2 pieces
Michael Dean
michael-dean-k/

Architect-turned-writer, founder of Essay Architecture. Building pattern languages, software, anthologies, and community for essayists.

Essay Club ↗
Michael Dean
Michael Dean

Architect-turned-writer, founder of Essay Architecture. Building pattern languages, software, anthologies, and community for essayists.

Michael Dean
Michael Dean

Architect-turned-writer, founder of Essay Architecture. Building pattern languages, software, anthologies, and community for essayists.

Essay Club ↗
Michael Dean
Michael Dean

Architect-turned-writer, founder of Essay Architecture. Building pattern languages, software, anthologies, and community for essayists.

Opus entitlement

· 234 words

I’m starting to feel the Opus 4.7 annoyance. Everyone has been complaining, and I told myself I’d be patient, but now I'm here watching Codex tutorials. 2 weeks ago I was able to effectively one-shot a Google Docs prototype in ~10 minutes with Opus 4.6. This sets the standard for what’s possible, and when that is ripped away, even 10% of it, it feels like theft, even when it’s still 2,000x faster than coding by hand. It’s easy to blame the model, but really AI coding has so many variables, and you can never really know the source of what shifted. Yes, it’s a new model, but also this time, I’m (a) deploying into an existing codebase instead of doing ground up; (b) the spec is far more detailed; (c) the whole factory has been redesigned. That’s four variables. It’s easy to not take the blame, put it on Opus, and then convert back to 4.6, but that itself is a change with unknown consequences. Was 4.6 nerfed too? The truth is we’re building systems on top of quicksand, but actually that’s not so novel because people are quicksandish too, always evolving, changing incentives, dreams, and abilities, totally variable day-to-day depending on if they slept or if they’re in a fight or not. We expect these machines to be deterministic (and use language like “factories”) but the cost of agency is a less determinism.

Adaptation is not a given

· 251 words

So here’s why I think AI is going to take everyone’s job. There’s the classic and comforting belief that “humans’ adapt.” That’s been true. There’s been some technological breakthrough that makes an old class tools useless, and so a whole generation pivots to a new class of tools. But AI is an innovation in tool and worker. AI, when it gets cheap, commoditized, and agentic enough, will be a supply shock to the labor market.

This might happen in addition to unimaginable productivity and abundance (if not destruction), and many utopians are calling for a “post-scarcity world” where everyone gets UBI. This will be a techno-luxury marxism. We won’t have economic value, but we’ll get paid to exist? We won’t understand how the machinery of culture works. It’s the next frontier of infantilism, and our parents aren’t human.

This leads to a leisure revolution and simultaneous meaning crisis. No one will be able to “escape from freedom” anymore. We’ll look back at full-time jobs as a form of slavery, and yet also, be paralyzed by a fear of the infinite possibilities in our lives. Best case, the average middle class person has no other option but to learn to become an artist.

This is of course a cartoon vignette, but fuzzy futurism is useful to the degree that it gets you to adapt to the present. Maybe that won’t come true, but if you assumed it true, how would you act today, and does that actually serve you in today’s timeline?