Comment by lazide
12 hours ago
I’m not saying it’s bad. I will note, however, that if it is actually accomplishing something net useful usually requires a long attention span and skepticism, which as you note the tools actively train everyone away from.
I did not claim they train people away from either.
That said, the review burden is rough, that I can agree with. I outright felt compelled to evaluate whether the additional review burden did not outweigh the benefits, but at least for my tasks it did not. So grumpily, I simply live with that pain.
Maybe it helps if I mention that my line of work is DevOps and Operations. I have an ongoing suspicion that this area is better suited than average for agentic work. The codebases are relatively tiny, the languages and technologies used are very well represented in training data, and there's a decent amount of side chore. I can definitely imagine agents being a lot more frustrating to work with on proper, sizeable codebases, and the numbers simply no longer adding up. I don't have much of a first hand account with that.
My closest exposure is some personal toy projects, where getting the actual vision out there ended up requiring an inordinate number of turns (this is with a frontier model). In my estimation it was still worth it, but I definitely had to give it a back of the napkin calc.
As far as my work goes, it is of course not magic, creatively worded AWS docs will still trip it up (as they initially also do me). In those cases, my expertise is still required. But the well trodden is very well trodden, and I could cut out a lot of cruft, including a lot of organizational minutia, which I very much appreciate. I was able to burn through my backlog almost completely, for example.