zlacker

>>mfbx9d+(OP)
I'm going to say an unpopular opinion here: I think agents are going to turn out mostly useless, even if they worked almost perfectly.

How many jobs involve purely clicking things on a computer without human authorities, rules, regulations, permits, spending agreements, privacy laws, security requirements, insurance requirements, or licensing gates?

I wager, almost none. The bottleneck in most work isn't "clicking things on a computer." It's human judgment, authorization chains, regulatory gates, accountability requirements, and spending approvals. Agents automate the easy part and leave the hard part untouched. Meanwhile, if the agents also get it wrong, even 1% of the time, that's going to add up like compound interest in wasted time. Anything that could actually be outsourced to an agent, would have already been outsourced to Kenya.

>>gjsman+Ntg
“Human directing an agent” will become the dominant paradigm. We’ll still be in the loop, but there is no need for me to go to five different websites to look up basic information and synthesize the answer a simple question.

>>turnso+Xvg
After all expertise is mechanized, we’ll be in their loop instead of them being in ours.

Think of this like going to a doctor with a simple question. It probably won’t be simple to them. At the end though, we usually do whatever they tell us. Because they are the experts, not us.