I think it's less carelessness and more the inability to attract (pay) people who have the technical knowhow to properly secure infrastructure. Even a lot of developers are poor network engineers and treat IT like magic at their own companies.
I've met info-sec / vulnerability researcher types that were egregiously reckless, like plugging Raspberry Pi's into the production network kind of thing.
Public sector has always paid low. But the problem is widespread, almost universal, and they've had a 15 year head start of the federal government telling them to get their shit together.
At some point it just became standard industry practice is my guess.
Upgrades to waste water are project based. Lowest bidder will not provide security for free. Security may be mentioned in spec but in hand waved language that can be hand waved away. That company doing the improvement project will have next to no documentation from the previous engineering effort. Just do bare minimum and move on to next job, because no one is getting paid enough to do put in more effort.
In all things when it fails in a drastic way the system will be corrected. People will die, it will suck, changes will be made.
Government is supposed to respond to these things and create incentives to correct. Telling a small municipality to do something without a carrot ir stick does nothing.
In this instance someone else will be providing the stick.
You’re on the right track, I think. But, I wouldn’t say it’s about the pay to attract competent workers. I think it has more to do with the incentive structures once you’re in. Incentives and performance management are fundamental problem in civil service. The incentives to set high standards and hold individuals accountable simply do not exist.
The one and only exception is the military, because lives are literally on the line in a way that is not at all abstract.
Usually when people say this they are dog whistling privatization. Which is the exact opposite thing people need in infrastructure, ask anyone who has to deal with PG&E.
Paying skilled people highly does actually incentivize people to do better work, especially if they are actually embedded into the community they are essentially working for. If being a civil servant was as "glorious" as being a techie is SF there would be a very different attitude around the work.
In an environment without accountability, higher pay is just more incentive to lay low and not take any personal risk. Why do anything other than the bare minimum when there is no upside? In a bureaucracy where responsibility is diffused and the culture is purely political and not merit/performance-based, few are willing to step out of line to do the right thing.
The people who climb to the top aren’t the ones who took a risk and got the reward. Quite the opposite, they’re the ones who learned to play the game and didn’t upset the power structure by rocking the boat. No one is going to tell the emperor he has no clothes when the path to power is political and has no grounding in reality.
Highly conscientious, intrinsically motivated people will do the right thing in any environment. And those people don’t last long in political/bureaucratic environments where the incentives are misaligned.
Your comments show, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you have never worked for the federal government and likely have never worked in state or local government.
>In a bureaucracy where responsibility is diffused and the culture is purely political and not merit/performance-based, few are willing to step out of line to do the right thing.
Federal employment is merit based. Advances are earned, not doled out to the teacher's pet or the ass-kisser with the most perfect pucker. You have no idea what you're talking about.
I have no idea where you or anyone else got the idea that a government employee has no responsibility or incentives and works strictly for political ends and even worse, where none are willing to speak up. You clearly have no experience in that space and should focus your comments on things that you better understand through direct experience.
>And those people don’t last long in political/bureaucratic environments where the incentives are misaligned.
This is bullshit and you are grossly misinformed. Plenty of people fight the polarization of the system on political lines from within the system. They use the laws that are in place in order to prevent systemic abuses. They may not win every internal fight but they do go to battle for the right reasons.
I don't think your attitude here is in keeping with the guidelines (or constructive discourse for that matter). You've made a number of uncharitable assumptions about the other party on the back of which you then launched into baseless personal attacks.
Notably everything in the comment you replied to applies equally to the public and private sector. They are neutral observations about systemic motives and the associated perverse incentives.
Also it's not clear to me that any of the utilities in question have anything to do with the federal government so I'm not sure why you dragged them into this.
>I don't think your attitude here is in keeping with the guidelines (or constructive discourse for that matter).
I'll make a note of that. Any comment that I make on this site is made in the hopes that there will be discussion generated. Sometimes that happens and other times it doesn't. I don't spend any part of my life wondering why people choose to or choose not to engage. Most of us have busy lives and this (HN) for us is an opportunity to catch up on interesting things.
>You've made a number of uncharitable assumptions about the other party on the back of which you then launched into baseless personal attacks.
I am not sure that noting that a poster has no experience in a subject and has no idea how it really works in practice becomes an uncharitable assumption. It may look like a personal attack but it is based entirely on the content of the user's own posts, which support the conclusion that I reached.
>They are neutral observations about systemic motives and the associated perverse incentives.
From /u/moscoe original comment in the thread:
>Incentives and performance management are fundamental problem in civil service. The incentives to set high standards and hold individuals accountable simply do not exist.
These two sentences here demonstrate that /u/moscoe does not have any experience working in the public sector for federal, state, or local government entities yet somehow they feel qualified to speak confidently (incorrectly) that those who have worked in that capacity are ham-strung by the system and disincentivized to make waves. That is false.
I mentioned federal employees specifically because they are civil servants (referenced by /u/moscoe above) and someone close to me has worked a long career in the federal government under several administrations from both political parties.
I think you have your opinions and you are entitled to those opinions. I am also sure that you are wrong about the content of my post. It was not uncharitable nor were there any assumptions. The conclusions that I drew were supported by the statements made by /u/moscoe. If it ends up looking like a personal attack then there was a basis for that personal attack.
It's possible that you read my comment without reading the full thread so some of the context was missing.
Corporations have even less accountability to the public than public utility districts. If you don’t like what the organization is doing, vote in different commissioners and make them aware of your concerns. But if you don’t like what your water service is doing, good luck drilling a well to get away from them.
Why do you assume that PG&E has a good incentive structure, or that the public sector must necessarily have a bad one? My only objection to the preceding comment would be that struggling with perverse incentives isn't limited to civil service. Incentive structures are a core struggle of approximately all large groups of people.
I think the big problem is administrative capacity.
There are better run governments than we have in the US.
The contempt for the state is a self-fulfilling prophecy. The state is incompetent because many of us believe it is inevitable that it will be. Compensation is just a part of it; coherent administration with continuity is even more important.
> Unfortunately, both low education for the general public and low quality of the public discourse exist by design.
Absolutely. Bread and circuses isn't a new idea.
>The only possible way to remedy this is to maximize your own ability to exert power, possibly by becoming massively rich, and then hope it doesn't corrupt you enough along the way such that you can still enact good in the end.
Points for the doing good in the end. But it's a rule in hell/serve in heaven issue, if you first need to create hell with your quest for power you have failed the objective of doing good in the end.
Evil can act Good, but Good cannot act Evil. Evil has that advantage over Good that cannot be matched.
This continuously plays out in our political systems. Good actors cannot fight the deluge of evil of their opponents, who are free to lie cheat and steal.
Good binds its own hands. For good to win, it must act with even greater evil. At which point, it becomes the very thing that it tried to defeat.
This is assuming a short game. Defection over cooperation dominates short games, but evil can't trust evil in longer play. And I would hope that the default desire is a long game..
For a variety of reasons, we no longer cultivate long term familial bonds or friendships, employment, or even product purchases. If you ask me, the world has increasingly become a series of short games that are being exploited by bad actors, and the result is an epic rise in distrust of just about everything and everyone.
> For a variety of reasons, we no longer cultivate long term familial bonds or friendships, employment, or even product purchases. If you ask me, the world has increasingly become a series of short games that are being exploited by bad actors, and the result is an epic rise in distrust of just about everything and everyone.
we are motivated economically to get more more more, that means everything has to be productized, sold and reinvested faster and faster; this has the effect of making things more and more 'short games' as you put it... it effects our thinking night and day; gotta 'get mine' and 'quick wins' etc... when the whole society is arranged that way everything else starts to wane... just my observation anyway
> Evil can act Good, but Good cannot act Evil. Evil has that advantage over Good that cannot be matched.
The assumption here is that being Evil is advantageous. It's obviously advantageous to personal gain, but the relevant thing is whether it's advantageous to staying in power, and then the system you want to design is the one where it isn't.
Notice also that it isn't binary. You can make it harder to be Evil and then have less of it even if you never have none.
Tangent: I think this illuminates why I enjoy the “evil” route in many RPGs. My evil party doesn’t have to be moustache twirling. They can pick and choose their evil moments. But a good party feels more constrained.
Rarely a great RPG forces my good party to make difficult decisions.
Funny enough Mass Effect: Andromeda, which I never finished for obvious reasons, actually had a few few moments with pretty thick gray areas where I had to really sit down and think about my decisions. It’s interesting looking back and recalling that mess as one of the only strong examples.
The time scales are long enough for evolution itself to play out. It's very plausible that the percent of the human gene pool that has the "restless builder" genes simply increased over time. Just consider how much of an advantage being technologically superior gives one party in a war.
People with irresponsible parents often end up feeling less responsibility towards them. People with responsible parents often feel more responsibility towards them. Often, the irresponsible groups are suffering more consequences too, which adds to the bitterness.
Of course there are other permutations, since life is full of so many uncontrollable factors.
> […] he and Musk and their respective teams started discussing a plan for Oracle to build and operate a massive A.I. data center for xAI. It would be in Abilene, Texas, and it would be constructed in the shape of an X.
It seems like the article's unspoken consensus is if they hired people (ideally local) and paid them a living wage it would go back to working well enough like it did before they attempted the bot.
I wonder why no one brought that up as a solution?
AI driven individual incentives for decision makers. Comp goes up for showing off AI, not hiring people.
Lots of “thought leaders” who push the solution but will be gone for the consequences. Next folks (usually those who remain) clean up the mess to no fanfare.
>Comp goes up for showing off AI, not hiring people.
That's funny because a few years ago it was the reverse. people were saying how big tech was bloated, caused by managers that felt their clout was proportional to how many people were under them.
You get what you measure. Both can be wildly irrational depending on incentives and target outcomes.
Would an AI solution have been in place in this context if testing revealed this outcome we’ve arrived at and a data driven decision was made to hire instead? Or was no testing done and we’re testing in prod? Sure looks like testing in prod or simply ignoring metrics specific to a quality customer experience. Like investigating a crash site, we have to ask what series of events and decisions have led us to this incident.
I am wary of stories like this, since they seem to appeal to what people want to be true rather than what is necessarily happening.
There are a lot of businesses quietly and conservatively implementing AI and seeing real results - it's just the crazy Jerry Springer blowups you hear about!
Yes, but that only some businesses do that flys in the face of the breathless, borderline psychotic boosterism a lot of us tend to hear quite a lot of, that AI is gojng to revolutionize everything.
Companies don't advertise their wins (the real results), what they advertise is just as or more offensive but not a win (not really real results), but the outraged Jerry Springer crowd with their hair on fire wants drama. Media is literally a multi dollar business these days, they'd do anything to boost their stocks further, so they provide that drama. Best to ignore all of that and focus on what is hidden from view and therefore real and serious.
Directly customer facing is a tough one, since a lot of the time chatbots are used to just fob off customers that eat up a lot of time (old people complaining etc).
I think the best experience I've had is when companies offer an MCP server that lets me get up and going with their product very quickly. Sequenzy is one such example I tried, very AI-first and works well with Codex.
If you're talking about stuff that isn't customer facing, there's all kinds of tasks that can and have been automated.
As a simple example, I run a retro games business and we've vibecoded up various controller/cartridge testing apps that have dropped the time it takes to test a box of product by around 50%. I'm planning to spin up a few Hermes agents soon to watch the prices of things and suggest improvements to our listings (e.g. noticing we haven't soldas many copies of Super Mario 64 as we should, and checking our keywords/pricing).
Obviously puts in big work with SaaS and stuff too.
EDIT: actually, Shopify's built-in agent works really well and is directly customer facing. It's a smart model (I think either a Kimi or Qwen as a base) that seems to have been fine tuned on their product itself.
You can ask it stuff like "what products have seen a decrease in sales" or "what is the value of my next payout" and it just answers them.
Before you had to manually write DB queries for this stuff, or more realistically just ignore it.
MCP is just API, and we have been there already and we know what happens: Businesses realise they can’t extract maximal value if they don’t own the interface so they recant the API.
> I wonder why no one brought that up as a solution?
Ooh! Ooh! I'm a local! I've used Kinney Drugs before.
They literally just can't find the work in the middle of nowhere (on top of not paying living wages). This region is a vast desert and we've lost every other major pharmacy.
"Living wage" up here is also kinda tricky because supposedly people seem to live just fine on minimum wage up here (provided you somehow had good enough credit to get housing in the first place). Things are /generally/ cheap, but there's still an unspoken "the boomers are just fine because they already own their house" up here.
We can't support a Walgreens, we can't support a CVS, we can barely support Walmart pharmacies. All you have for a choice up here is Kinney Drugs or Walmart Pharmacy.
And on top of that, as a former Kinney customer (pre-Burt): they really didn't do a good job in the first place. They suck.
I disagree that "AI" is the major issue on top of Kinney's problems, they've also recently transitioned to a "centralized filling" system in prior months that has caused quite frankly the largest amounts of frustration among customers. They continually fail to fill prescriptions that come into the local pharmacies, instead sending them out to central fill, and every time you show up at the pharmacy it's a "come back tomorrow" because it didn't come on the truck. At this point I don't even back down from that like the rest of the elderly customers, I perk up, tell them it's bullshit, they have stock, and suddenly the teenager punches a few buttons and go "we can have it ready in 20 minutes sir".
But yes, the Burt IVR bullshit is also equally bad and they really keep peddling it in the stores. I've wanted to punch the stupid cardboard standee in the face a couple times.
Clearly the bottom section of that K should bootstrap themselves harder. Or work on their firm handshake.
Joking aside, the amount of people who have absolutely no understanding of how bad the housing market to income ratio of the average person is so comically stupid it must be deliberate at this point. To share articles like this just belabors that ignorance.
reply