The right way to look at these networks is that people are being trained by the algorithm, not the other way around. The ultimate goal is to elicit behaviors in humans, normally to spend more time and spend more money in the platform, but also for other goals that may be designed by the owners of the network.
My observation is that all these services are exploding in complexity, and they justify saying that there are more features now, so everyone needs to accept spending more and more time and effort for the same results.
It's basically the same dynamic as hedonic adjustment in the CPI calculations. Cars may cost twice as much now they have usb chargers built in so inflation isn't really that bad.
The end result of all this is that the percentage of people who know how to implement systems without AWS/Azure will be a single digit. From that point on, this will be the only "economic" way, it doesn't matter what the prices are.
That's not a factual statement over reality, but more of a normative judgement to justify resignation. Yes, professionals that know how to actually do these things are not abundantly available, but available enough to achieve the transition. The talent exists and is absolutely passionate about software freedom and hence highly intrinsically motivated to work on it. The only thing that is lacking so far is the demand and the talent available will skyrocket, when the market starts demanding it.
They actually are abundantly available and many are looking for work. The volume of "enterprise IT" sysadmin labor dwarfs that of the population of "big tech" employees and cloud architects.
I've worked with many "enterprise IT" sysadmins (in healthcare, specifically). Some are very proficient generalists, but most (in my experience) are fluent in only their specific platforms, no different than the typical AWS engineer.
Perhaps we need bootcamps for on prem stacks if we are concerned about a skills gap. This is no different imho from the trades skills shortage many developed countries face. The muscle must be flexed. Otherwise, you will be held captive by a provider "who does it all for you".
"Today, we are going to calculate the power requirements for this rack, rack the equipment, wire power and network up, and learn how to use PXE and iLO to get from zero to operational."
This might be my own ego talking (I see myself as a generalist), but IMHO what we need are people that are comfortable jumping into unfamiliar systems and learning on-the-fly, applying their existing knowledge to new domains (while recognizing the assumptions their existing knowledge is causing them to make). That seems much harder to teach, especially in a boot camp format.
As a very curious autodidact, I strongly agree, but this talent is rare and can punch it's own ticket (broadly speaking). These people innovate and build systems for others to maintain, in my experience. But, to your point, we should figure out the sorting hat for folks who want to radically own these on prem systems [1] if they are needed.
I don't really think so. That was a ship that sailed ten years ago and nearly every sysadmin who is still proficient with managing on-prem stacks has adapted to also learn how to manage VPCs in an arbitrary cloud. It's not like this is a recent change.
> and the talent available will skyrocket, when the market starts demanding it.
Part of what clouds are selling is experience. A "cloud admin" bootcamp graduate can be a useful "cloud engineer", but it takes some serious years of experience to become a talented on prem sre. So it becomes an ouroboros: moving towards clouds makes it easier to move to the clouds.
> A "cloud admin" bootcamp graduate can be a useful "cloud engineer",
If by useful you mean "useful at generating revenue for AWS or GCP" then sure, I agree.
These certificates and bootcamps are roughly equivalent to the Cisco CCNA certificate and training courses back in the 90's. That certificate existed to sell more Cisco gear - and Cisco outright admitted this at the time.
In part - yes. Useful as in capable of spinning up services without opening glaring security holes or bringing half of the infra down. Like with any tech, it takes experience and guardrails to use it efficiently and effectively.
> A "cloud admin" bootcamp graduate can be a useful "cloud engineer"
That is not true. It takes a lot more than a bootcamp to be useful in this space, unless your definition is to copy-paste some CDK without knowing what it does.
Only time will tell. It depends on when someone with a MBA starts asking questions about cloud spending and runs the real numbers. People promoting self hosting often are not counting all the cost of self hosting (AWS has people working 24x7 so that if something fails someone is there to take action)
> AWS has people working 24x7 so that if something fails someone is there to take action..
The number of things that these 24x7 people from AWS will cover for you is small. If your application craps out for any number of reasons that doesn't have anything to do with AWS, that is on you. If your app needs to run 24x7 and it is critical, then you need your own 24x7 person anyway.
All the hardware and network issues are on them. I agree that you still need your own people to support you applications, but that is only part of the problem.
I've got thousands of devices over hundreds of sites in dozens of countries. The number of hardware failures are a tiny number, and certainly don't need 24/7 response
From what I've seen, if you're depending on AWS, if something fails you too need someone 24x7 so that you can take action as well. Sometimes magic happens and systems recover after aws restarts their DNS, but usually the combination of event causes the application to get into an unrecoverable state that you need manual action. It doesn't always happen but you need someone to be there if it ever happens. Or bare minimum you need to evaluate if the underlying issue is really caused by AWS or something else has to be done on top of waiting for them to fix.
I've only had one outage I could attribute to running on-prem, meanwhile it's a bit of a joke with the non-IT staff in the office that when "The Internet" (i.e. Cloudflare, Amazon) goes down with news reports etc our own services are all running fine.
Distributed systems can partly fail in many subtly different ways, and you almost never notice it because there are people on-call taking care of them.
It already is like that, but not because of the cloud. Those of us who begun with computers in the era of the command line were forced to learn the internals of operating systems, and many ended up turning this hobby into a job.
Youngsters nowadays start with very polished interfaces and smartphones, so even if the cloud wasn't there it would take them a decade to learn systems design on-the-job, which means it wouldn't happen anyway for most. The cloud nowadays mostly exists because of that dearth of system internals knowledge.
While there still are around people who are able to design from scratch and operate outside a cloud, these people tend to be quite expensive and many (most?) tend to work for the cloud companies themselves or SaaS businesses, which means there's a great mismatch between demand and supply of experienced system engineers, at least for the salaries that lower tier companies are willing to pay. And this is only going to get worse. Every year, many more experienced engineers are retiring than the noobs starting on the path of systems engineering.
Jeffrey Epstein's friend Elon Musk is trying to stop a financial disaster in xAi that would expose how irresponsible he is. He's gonna put all that in a company that has real money coming from government and soon will get retail investors money.
This is all based on bad math. The people proposing these things don't even have proper scientific and mathematical training to determine what is achievable.
They never did any math at all. They knew their supporters would burn thousands of hours and bend over backwards doing dishonest math for them and provide cover for what is a looting operation.
In the case of Photoshop it is the software itself that is becoming useless. In a few years, using photoshop will be viewed the same as developing physical film, a process from a by-gone era that is still possible, but impractical.
This is an extremely bold claim and I think that it completely overlooks how Photoshop is used by professionals in practice. Professional users want extremely fine grained and precise control over their tools to achieve the specific results that they want. AI "image editing" is incapable of providing anything remotely similar.
I've recently re-instated a Photoshop subscription and its now part of my core AI generated asset workflow. AI is fantastic at art direction but it needs minor adjustments to make it production ready. E.g putting real screenshots in with correct placement, smoothing, editing out artefacts etc.
I can't imagine the lengths I'd have to go to to instruct an LLM to do these tasks with words.
How much of what you do with Photoshop could be done with open source tools instead (GIMP, ImageMagick, etc), versus how much do you really need Photoshop for?
One technique I’ve used for cleaning up AI-generated images, was a Python script driving ImageMagick-and an LLM helped write the Python script (although it took a few iterations, because the LLM’s first attempt didn’t actually work)
Software developers programmed themselves out of a job. They created a huge and growing set of free, tested, high quality software in the form of open source, that can be use for pretty much anything. LLMs will automate a lot of the remaining pieces.
I haven't seen what you're suggesting from a CEO at a large company that's primary business is non-software related. At some point in a businesses life theres an accumulation of so many disparate needs and systems that there can be many many layers of cross org needs for fulfilling business processes. This stuff is messy.
I think I saw it asserted that its easier for a new company, which definitely makes sense as you don't carry along all the baggage.
I work in large projects like this, the CEO doesn't get involved in the little "computer project" except during the project kickoff. Even then, it's just to "say a few words about the people I admire on this team". In large global companies these projects are delegated 3 or 4 levels below the CEO at the highest.
Makes me wonder if they are getting ripe for disruption. Not by a new business model, but a new operating model where a CEO will be tech/ai-aware and push through all these kinds of things.
reply