The world could run on older hardware if software optimization was a priority

There is an argument to be made that the market buys bug-filled, inefficient software about as well as it buys pristine software. And one of them is the cheapest software you could make.

It's similar to the "Market for Lemons" story. In short, the market sells as if all goods were high-quality but underhandedly reduces the quality to reduce marginal costs. The buyer cannot differentiate between high and low-quality goods before buying, so the demand for high and low-quality goods is artificially even. The cause is asymmetric information.

This is already true and will become increasingly more true for AI. The user cannot differentiate between sophisticated machine learning applications and a washing machine spin cycle calling itself AI. The AI label itself commands a price premium. The user overpays significantly for a washing machine[0].

It's fundamentally the same thing when a buyer overpays for crap software, thinking it's designed and written by technologists and experts. But IC1-3s write 99% of software, and the 1 QA guy in 99% of tech companies is the sole measure to improve quality beyond "meets acceptance criteria". Occasionally, a flock of interns will perform an "LGTM" incantation in hopes of improving the software, but even that is rarely done.

[0] https://www.lg.com/uk/lg-experience/inspiration/lg-ai-wash-e...

I have worked for large corporations that have foisted awful HR, expense reporting, time tracking and insurance "portals" that were so awful I had to wonder if anyone writing the checks had ever seen the product. I brought up the point several times that if my team tried to tell a customer that we had their project all done but it was full of as many bugs and UI nightmares as these back office platforms, I would be chastised, demoted and/or fired.

I used to work at a large company that had a lousy internal system for doing performance evals and self-reviews. The UI was shitty, it was unreliable, it was hard to use, it had security problems, it would go down on the eve of reviews being due, etc. This all stressed me out until someone in management observed, rather pointedly, that the reason for existence of this system is that we are contractually required to have such a system because the rules for government contracts mandate it, and that there was a possibility (and he emphasized the word possibility knowingly) that the managers actully are considering their personal knowledge of your performance rather than this performative documentation when they consider your promotions and comp adjustments. It was like being hit with a zen lightning bolt: this software meets its requirements exactly, and I can stop worrying about it. From that day on I only did the most cursory self-evals and minimal accomplishents, and my career progressed just fine.

You might not think about this as “quality” but it does have the quality of meeting the perverse functional requirements of the situation.