It's a great point. At 36, Steve House released a video in 2006 about all his climbing equipment (someone talked him into it.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCKK-e4gVVA (reupload) I thinked he helped a lot of people with that video in the super competitive world of mountaineering. This was after a legendary ascent of Nanga Parbat. Shot himself in the foot but cemented his status.

A year or two ago there were some very precise workflows documented here. The reluctance now would mark the transition away from "sharing helps me" to "sharing hinders me" ...it's an interesting topic. Sharing with strangers may be the problem.

Just imagine if all sporting stars shared their secrets.. what would happen? Secrets just occur naturally, if you don't share, they'll likely be stolen unless protected - and that requires effort too.

You're not going to lose your job because you shared your AI setup / tools with your colleagues. You're going to lose your job because management over-hired and is being pressured by shareholders to reduce employee salary expenses. It won't matter what hard problem solving moat you think you have if management is forced to have layoffs and you're in an unlucky situation. If you're worried about job security, you should consider joining a union and not be fixated on knowledge sharing.

> It won't matter what hard problem solving moat you think you have

This is false on its face. There's a reason why a company, even today, would hire John Carmack over a person with no reputation, or offer him a higher salary if employing both people.

Unionising is definitely something worth considering. But, as with the question of whether it's better to compete or cooperate with other people in your field, is a nuanced question that depends on details you aren't acknowledging.

I think you've introduced a new dimension that is irrelevant to the original argument -- namely the original debate in this thread fork was that "knowledge sharing" is not what is killing your job security. Your comparison to John Carmack, is more an argument about competency rather than knowledge-sharing, and so yes that's pretty much a trivially obvious and true statement: a highly competent employee has more job security than a less competent one. Great, you win that point, nobody is arguing against that.

But also, do you not see the irony in the fact that, aside from John Carmack's obviously high degree of individual competency, another huge aspect of Carmack's value as an engineer, is how he's dedicated a huge portion of his career and his time to -- wait for it -- SHARING his knowledge and his approach (and yes, his personal setup? [1]). Carmack is actually an excellent proof-point of the positive value of knowledge-sharing and building a career on a foundation of openness, rather than an argument that engineers should selfishly guard their secrets and retreat into their own personal caves to guard their perceived local/private moats.

[1] Just one random example, out of probably thousands of such interviews or blog posts or whatever that he's probably done over his career: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzr7hRXcwkw

I was only objecting to this claim in the parent post:

> It won't matter what hard problem solving moat you think you have

If that is "a new dimension that is irrelevant to the original argument", you'll have to take that up with them. (I think it is a load-bearing part of their core argument.)