西雅图的所有人都讨厌人工智能。
Everyone in Seattle hates AI

原始链接: https://jonready.com/blog/posts/everyone-in-seattle-hates-ai.html

## 西雅图的AI反弹 最近与一位受人尊敬的前微软同事共进午餐时,发现西雅图科技工作者对人工智能普遍持负面态度——这与作者的人工智能地图Wanderfugl在其他地方获得的积极反响形成了鲜明对比。这并非针对产品本身,而是对微软等大型科技公司内部有毒环境的一种反应。 由于公司范围内推动采用(并表现出拥抱)微软的人工智能工具——通常不如替代方案——工程师们感到压抑和贬低。与“Copilot使用效率低下”相关的裁员引发了怨恨,许多人感到被贴上了“非人工智能人才”的标签,并看到职业发展停滞不前。 这形成了一个自我限制的循环:害怕使用强制工具失败,抑制独立创新,以及对任何标有“人工智能”的东西的普遍敌意。作者将此与微软过去的一种赋权和实验文化形成对比,现在已被僵化的结构和普遍的幻灭感所取代。西雅图曾经充满活力的科技圈现在正面临着信任危机,阻碍了新的创业,并扼杀了人才。

## 西雅图对人工智能的怀疑:摘要 最近一篇Hacker News上的帖子引发了关于西雅图(尤其是微软和亚马逊)的科技工人中存在反人工智能情绪的讨论。 核心问题并非是对*技术*本身的否定,而是对公司将人工智能炒作置于为客户提供真正价值之上的做法感到沮丧。 许多工程师感到被迫将人工智能融入到项目中,即使在不需要或有害的情况下,也是出于投资者期望而非实际应用。 许多评论者表达了相同的观点,描述了一种将人工智能视为强行趋势的文化,导致匆忙、实施糟糕的功能,甚至以人工智能整合为幌子的裁员。 人们普遍认为,宝贵的工程时间被浪费在“人工智能洗绿”上,而不是构建强大、有用的产品。 虽然一些人承认人工智能的潜力,尤其是在代码生成等领域,但许多人对它被过度宣传以及由此产生的低质量实现充斥互联网表示担忧。 这场讨论凸显了真正的创新与追求尖端形象之间的紧张关系,一些人担心人工智能正成为又一个过度炒作的技术泡沫。 最终,这种情绪似乎是希望专注于提供切实的价值,而不是追逐最新的潮流。
相关文章

原文

I grabbed lunch with a former Microsoft coworker I've always admired—one of those engineers who can take any idea, even a mediocre one, and immediately find the gold in it. I wanted her take on Wanderfugl 🐦, the AI-powered map I've been building full-time. I expected encouragement. At worst, overly generous feedback because she knows what I've sacrificed.

Instead, she reacted to it with a level of negativity I'd never seen her direct at me before.

When I finally got her to explain what was wrong, none of it had anything to do with what I built. She talked about Copilot 365. And Microsoft AI. And every miserable AI tool she's forced to use at work. My product barely featured. Her reaction wasn't about me at all. It was about her entire environment.

The AI Layoffs

Her PM had been laid off months earlier. The team asked why. Their director told them it was because the PM org "wasn't effective enough at using Copilot 365."

I nervously laughed. This director got up in a group meeting and said that someone lost their job over this?

After a pause I tried to share how much better I've been feeling—how AI tools helped me learn faster, how much they accelerated my work on Wanderfugl. I didn't fully grok how tone deaf I was being though. She's drowning in resentment.

I left the lunch deflated and weirdly guilty, like building an AI product made me part of the problem.

But then I realized this was bigger than one conversation. Every time I shared Wanderfugl with a Seattle engineer, I got the same reflexive, critical, negative response. This wasn't true in Bali, Tokyo, Paris, or San Francisco—people were curious, engaged, wanted to understand what I was building. But in Seattle? Instant hostility the moment they heard "AI."

The people at big tech in Seattle are not ok

When I joined Microsoft, there was still a sense of possibility. Satya was pushing "growth mindset" everywhere. Leaders talked about empowerment and breaking down silos. And even though there was always a gap between the slogans and reality, there was room to try things.

I leaned into it. I pushed into areas nobody wanted to touch, like Windows update compression, because it lived awkwardly across three teams. Somehow, a 40% improvement made it out alive. Leadership backed it. The people trying to kill it shrank back into their fiefdoms. It felt like the culture wanted change.

That world is gone.

When the layoff directive hit, every org braced for impact. Anything not strictly inside the org's charter was axed. I went from shipping a major improvement in Windows 11 to having zero projects overnight. I quit shortly after. In hindsight, getting laid off with severance might've been better than watching the culture collapse in slow motion.

Then came the AI panic.

If you could classify your project as "AI," you were safe and prestigious. If you couldn't, you were nobody. Overnight, most engineers got rebranded as "not AI talent." And then came the final insult: everyone was forced to use Microsoft's AI tools whether they worked or not.

Copilot for Word. Copilot for PowerPoint. Copilot for email. Copilot for code. Worse than the tools they replaced. Worse than competitors' tools. Sometimes worse than doing the work manually.

But you weren't allowed to fix them—that was the AI org's turf. You were supposed to use them, fail to see productivity gains, and keep quiet.

Meanwhile, AI teams became a protected class. Everyone else saw comp stagnate, stock refreshers evaporate, and performance reviews tank. And if your team failed to meet expectations? Clearly you weren't "embracing AI."

Bring up AI in a Seattle coffee shop now and people react like you're advocating asbestos.

Amazon folks are slightly more insulated, but not by much. The old Seattle deal—Amazon treats you poorly but pays you more—only masks the rot.

Self-Limiting Beliefs

This belief system—that AI is useless and that you're not good enough to work on it anyway—hurts three groups:

1. The companies.
They've taught their best engineers that innovation isn't their job.

2. The engineers.
They're stuck in resentment and self-doubt while their careers stall.

3. Anyone trying to build anything new in Seattle.
Say "AI" and people treat you like a threat or an idiot.

And the loop feeds itself:
Engineers don't try because they think they can't.
Companies don't empower them because they assume they shouldn't.
Bad products reinforce the belief that AI is doomed.
The spiral locks in.

My former coworker—the composite of three people for anonymity—now believes she's both unqualified for AI work and that AI isn't worth doing anyway. She's wrong on both counts, but the culture made sure she'd land there.

Seattle has talent as good as anywhere. But in San Francisco, people still believe they can change the world—so sometimes they actually do.

联系我们 contact @ memedata.com