Many indistries are changing, but in most cases the new tools will be more akin to cars that still need drivers, rather than robots who take over the whole job. Yes, jobs might be lost, or shifted to others, but it's not like suddenly 90% of people will have nothing to do. There were similar shifts in the past with new technologies, and we made it past them.

"ultimately accountable for the success or failure of a specific project, initiative, or activity"

I think that role should be reserved for a human, who can then use all the agents they like but has to take accountability for what is ultimately delivered.

Some of these people have lost their damn minds.

People building an agent framework that will struggle to correctly infer that my appointment at a hospital will require additional travel time when organising my calendar for me waxing lyrical about the future of the humn race is chaotic behavior.

Th Wright brothers would have had no credibility discussing what ATC protocols should be, and they, at least, actually did something credible.

I‘m not denying that you can get far with a port of a well tested codebase. But it’s a bit of a selective example, no? Porting a large framework to Rust is not something that’s making up a meaningful fraction of a developer’s time usually. It’s also a bit of a luxury IMO, and something you could have skipped entirely.

https://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Adeptus_Mechanicus_Quotes

The middle management in companies is one of the worst inventions ever. I think baboons have better middle management structure than us.

Might as well replace all that.

> Your agents need to be sovereign. Your company must own and control the agents’ identities, permissions, memory, skills, artifacts, and audit trails. Those assets must be portable, governable, and inaccessible to anyone you have not authorized.

That's not very open, now is it? In fact it sounds like the author assumes that all 8 billion people in the world will all be running their own company, and they will all still be competing in a game of capitalism.

LLMs will not be centralised or restrained to any 'clergy', the rabbit is already out of the hat, and open-weights models exist and are widely used. Probably not as good as the latest Sol and Fable but 95% there.

Codex and Claude Code without a doubt have very good models behind them. But they also have really good harnesses built around them. An LLM is only a brain stuck in a cranium in the dark. It can generate endless code/prose, but it can't walk or see on its own, it needs additional tools. If you read any of the local LLM subreddits you will notice people mentioning again and again that the harness/tool-use/template-tweaking makes all the difference on how a model behaves/on how smart it is perceived.

Some folks are already using Qwen models for their daily work. Maybe it can't work in a hands-off/one-shot fashion like the frontier models, but they can help tremendously if you already have some domain knowledge.

People are excited about local LLMs and it's not going away any time soon.

EDIT: https://bun.com/blog/bun-in-rust

> Claude Code's dynamic workflows kept 64 Claudes running for 11 days (I would've had to write my own harness to pull this off otherwise).

This highlights the importance of the harness.

But the author's vision is also suspect, if you assume that the models will become much more intelligent:

1. Hypothetically, we can't give every human their own personal SkyNet to command. That would, uh, probably end very badly. If everyone gets an agent, those agents can't be too capable?

2. If you do somehow build a model that's much smarter than you, what do you contribute by managing it? How many people here have ever worked for a well-intentioned manager who couldn't understand the people they managed? So in this scenario, human management would be mostly displaced by agent management. Most companies could lay almost everyone off and let the agents manage each other. We only need humans to manage models now because the models are still pretty broken.

3. If we create models that can genuinely replace humans at almost any task, you won't be able to buy those on the API. At that point, the billionaires and the politicians wouldn't need human workers any more, because everything can be done better using their pet agents. Just have the robots build stuff for the billionaires directly. And if any of the former human peons get upset about being locked out of the economy to starve, then have the agents pilot the drones, too.

Basically, almost none of the people imagining a future of superhuman intelligences have actually though through how it would actually work in the real world. We're going to spend trillions of dollars and vast amounts of resources chasing the goal of making ordinary humans obsolete. Now, that goal might be unobtainable, I hope. But I'm deeply alarmed at how much we're spending pursuing it.

Of course it would be great to make use of AI to solve cancer or fix other intractable problems, but we all know this isn’t the way things are going to go. The cancer is in our minds, our societies, and our norms that push us deeper and deeper into a grow-at-any-cost reality where the need for productivity is neither questioned nor considered in any real way. They say: we must grow! They say: we must be more productive! And we sit around thinking about who is going to control the productivity instead of acknowledging the real issues at hand.

I can only imagine a solution where we can all collectively agree that enough is enough. I’m not hopeful it’s possible and I think it’s probably the only way.

None of it is wrong exactly, but it feels like same enterprise-security machine finding the next anxiety surface than a "world is on fire right now" concern.

All of it always ends as a priesthood and a six-figure governance platform, rather than just taking practical steps to improve process.

There was a point in time when the majority of people were basically required to work on producing bare necessities like food. But we have already come far past that, where we could easily produce more than enough food for everyone on earth with a relatively small amount of workers.

There is some work that is still more or less essential to a healthy society that humans must perform, but many many people are doing something non-essential (and those doing essential work are often not rewarded proportionally to the "essentialness" of that work). We invent different kinds of "work" to fit into the capitalist machine that we have built, not because it is required for human sustainability or enriching our lives in any way. Some work might be actively harmful to society in every way other than keeping capital flowing around in some circle, and more and more of that capital is being captured/hoarded by some ultra wealthy individuals or corporations and not recirculating at all.

The problem is allocation. We allocate everything via capital, which I recognize has had some very positive outcomes at certain points in history, but may be reaching a point of making less and less sense for the modern world. The work I do honestly does not contribute much of anything to anyone. I do it because I am paid to, and I use that money to pay for my families needs. If my job was automated I would not be freed up for leisure, I would need to find some other work or service to be paid for to survive, regardless of how "important" that work is.

AI eliminating a swath of non-essential work does nothing to help with that allocation issue, in fact it probably ends in a worse overall allocation. AI may legitimately assist with some slice of "essential".work, but probably not that much of it.

Skynet has won.