Comment by m00x
3 months ago
Agentic coding is absolutely not a failure. It's just not the 10x that CEOs really wanted it to be.
We learned that some tasks don't really benefit from AI while others do. My team went from 7 people to 2 (went to new teams, no layoffs), and we're doing the same amount if not more work than we used to.
Is it more draining and lacking of focused work? Yes. Is it more money for the business? Yes.
Friend, you are commenting on a thread where one of the most prominent figures in tech (rightly or wrongly) is saying something did not meet expectations. As far as we can tell this is a man with every incentive to exaggerate and boost these products.
In my world, when something is expensive and doesn’t meet expectations it called a failure. Especially when something has been as hyped, scrutinized, defended and attacked as vibe coding.
Honestly, if you are the director of robotics at a firm I think it’s time you took a cold shower.
Why are you assuming Zuck's expectations for progress of _his_ product have anything to do with the impact of that category of product for its users?
I’m sorry, what’s the question? Genuinely not sure.
I’ll rephrase, Zuckerberg would certainly enjoy agentic coding to be a wild success because it means less staff and more products he could fail to create.
8 replies →
Pretty sure Zuck was talking about agents in general, not specifically Meta agents.
1 reply →
Why would Zuckerberg want to boost their AI, they have none to speak of after Llama really? Zuckerberg actually has every expectation to downplay AI so as to save face that Llama failed compared to frontier models.
[flagged]
1 reply →
On the other side of this you have two companies growing revenue literally the fastest ever in any market segment, just for said tech. Somebody is spending this money and thinks it's worth it. Let's check back in six months.
Sure thing, just like I’ve been checking back on people over the last 3 years. I’ll hit you up too.
7 replies →
> Agentic coding is absolutely not a failure. It's just not the 10x that CEOs really wanted it to be.
It’s absolutely 10x faster for coding. But coding is only 10% of my job. The other 90% is figuring out what to code.
From my experience with daily stand-ups, I think they can be a significant boost to that, too. Though you will absolutely have to wear a manager hat with their estimates and breakdowns, not just fire-and-forget, as they're often as not wildly over-optimistic about task complexity.
Being a "failure" means it fails to meet its success criteria.
If you claim 10x and deliver 3x, that is a failure. The 3x may still be impressive or a gamechanger or ..., but it still falls short of its promises.
10x is a marketing gimmick in development, AI and pretty much everywhere
So what? Who cares about such a binary claims?
People making decisions.
Pay me 8x to get 10x, great. Pay me 8x to get 3x, nope.
3 replies →
I am also leading a small team of myself and 2 others and we're getting a lot done. The short lines of communication of being a small group + the power of agents has been great for us.
> Is it more draining and lacking of focused work?
To be completely honest, I’m living life right now. I love programming with my bare hands, but man I’m living just building a gajillion things a mile a minute with LLMs. I then come home and spend hours building stuff for myself using local models. I’ve never been so excited about just building shit, that I sometimes want to pull all nighters because I’ve been in the zone (a for work and at home).
Draining? Sorry… inject that LLM serum right into my veins
> while others do
Now we just need to find those tasks. I want to believe.
> and we're doing the same amount if not more work than we used to
Zero evidence for this. It's programmers self-reporting their own productivity. (Have we not learned this lesson after 50 years of programming practice?)