Recently, I've seen a lot of discussions about clawdbot, overwhelmingly focused on how to improve efficiency, how to help oneself reply to messages, and how to take over the computer to get work done. It made me truly realize something.
Over the past two years, new technologies, applications, and AI plugins have emerged one after another. Whether it's self-media promotions or users chanting slogans, the talk is always about various disruptions, revolutions, and leaps in efficiency. Regardless of whether they're using marketing rhetoric or sharing user experiences, I've noticed that only one word repeatedly appears: work.
Everyone is using these so-called "rapidly evolving" tools to work. But the problem is, the more they hype them up, the more similar their outputs seem to me. I always felt something was off but couldn't pinpoint why—until now.
Because aside from work, these things hardly offer any other value.
"Configure the tool and let it work for me 24/7."
This statement itself is highly alarming.
This narrative not only negates the value of individual labor but also the value of labor itself. If a task can be automated around the clock simply by configuring a tool, it only means your labor has no "premium," and the task itself holds minimal value. In other words, it lacks scarcity and doesn't require judgment.
From a market logic perspective, any output that can be replicated at low cost, on a large scale, and automatically is unlikely to command a premium, let alone dignity. The fervor for automation is essentially an admission that one is engaged in labor that can be replaced at any moment—just phrased more respectably.
These highly hyped AI tools are nothing more than highly homogenized copy-paste.
They ultimately point toward an automated process with no room for premium. Their commonalities far outweigh their differences, with distinctions between products often limited to interfaces and packaging (and even the interfaces are strikingly similar). This is why it's hard to pinpoint what makes a particular "innovative" tool irreplaceable or what it truly changes.
As the design goals and forms of various tools increasingly converge, the tools themselves gradually lose their distinct outlines in users' minds. When everyone uses the same logic to "work fully automatically," the result can only be increasingly flat architectures, increasingly average code, and systems increasingly lacking in flexibility.
The so-called efficiency improvements often merely postpone complexity rather than eliminate it from the system.
But the most ironic part is the programmers who hype all this.
In reality, most programmers are indeed engaged in moving a pile of "technical debt" from point A to point B. This repetitive labor often stems from organizational structures, decision-making processes, and various forms of office politics and performative overtime, making it difficult for individuals to escape. Yet, strangely, they get excited about "using different tools to move the same pile of technical debt."
Hundreds of AI tools have emerged in the market, specifically designed to speed up moving technical debt. Programmers complain about repetitive labor while taking pride in switching to a more convenient tool. Instead of using tools to amplify their creativity, they stay put, digging themselves deeper into a hole with various laser shovels adorned with ambient lighting.
Their division, in my view, resembles the absurdity of the myth of Sisyphus, except they also play the role of the punishing gods. There's nothing more bizarre than punishing oneself.
When the software industry completely devolves into a traditional industry.
From the "incompetent revelry" among programmers, it's evident that the software industry today seems to have completely devolved into a traditional industry.
Most people in the industry know that the majority of system issues stem from either insufficient communication of requirements or inadequate testing. These shortcomings often arise from unreasonable deadlines, as many so-called urgent tasks are merely the result of temporary decisions or a leader's whims—a consequence of mismanaged projects. The actual requirements of a normal project are limited. What's infinite are the constantly changing opinions, the political consumption in meeting rooms, and the performative processes where a simple statement takes hours of discussion.
In such an environment, it's natural to foster a piece-rate logic centered on working hours and delivery speed. This distortion of the intellectual labor industry into piece-rate handicraft is continuously squeezing an industry that should be centered on thinking and design.
When an industry begins to pursue undifferentiated speed while no longer caring about unique logic and judgment, its evolution has essentially stagnated.
The tools in our hands may be more advanced than ever, but if the work content still revolves around chaotic decisions and historical legacy issues, even the shiniest tools only serve to improve the efficiency of self-consumption.
This kind of progress may seem lively, but in reality, it's more like an elaborate form of self-consolation.