zlacker

>>laiysb+(OP)
With how stochastic the process is it makes it basically unusable for any large scale task. What's the plan? To roll the dice until the answer pops up? That would be maybe viable if there was a way to automatically evaluate it 100% but with a human in the loop required it becomes untenable.

>>margor+72
The plan is to improve AI agents from their current ~intern level to a level of a good engineer.

>>eterev+J2
They are not intern level.

Even if it could perform at a similar level to an intern at a programming task, it lacks a great deal of the other attributes that a human brings to the table, including how they integrate into a team of other agents (human or otherwise). I won't bother listing them, as we are all humans.

I think the hype is missing the forest for the trees, and I think exactly this multi-agent dynamic might be where the trees start to fall down in front of us. That and the as currently insurmountable issues of context and coherence over long time horizons.

>>ehnto+8a
The real missing the forest for the trees is thinking that software and the way users will use computers is going to remain static.

Software today is written to accommodate every possible need of every possible user, and then a bunch of unneeded selling point features on top of that. These massive sprawling code bases made to deliver one-size fits all utility.

I don't need 3 million LOC Excel 365 to keep track of who is working on the floor on what day this week. Gemini 2.5 can write an applet that does that perfectly in 10 minutes.

>>Workac+5s
I don't believe it will remain static, in fact it's done nothing but change every year for my entire career.

I do like the idea of smaller programs fitting smaller needs being easy to access for everyone, and in my post history you would see me advocate for bringing software wages down so that even small businesses can have software capabilities in house. Software has so much to give to society outside of big VC flips and tech monoliths. Maybe AI is how we get there in the end.

But I think that supplanting humans with an AI workforce in the very near future might be stretching the projection of its capabilities too far. LLMs will be augmenting how businesses operate from now and into the future, but I am seeing clear roadblocks that make an autonomous AI agent unviable, and it seems to be fundamental limitations of LLMs, eg continuity and context. Advances recently seem to be from supplemental systems that try to patch those limitations. That suggests those limits are tricky, and until a new approach shows up, that is what drives my lack of faith in an AI agent revolution.

But it is clear to me that I could be wrong, and it could be a spectacular miscalculation. Maybe the robots will make me eat my hat.