That's my point. You couldn't tell an unemployed farm worker to go start their own farm. They probably don't have the land or substantial capital it takes. But an unemployed software engineer just doesn't need anything like that to go into a business built on AI.

The way I do it is every morning we go through recent emails in my inbox one at a time. If I want to mark it as spam, delete it, add it to my calendar, whatever, I explain to the agent why in detail. Over time it builds up an understanding of how I handle a lot of things, it needs to show me less and less, and it handles more and more on its own.

I also told the assistant to check my email on its own once per hour and auto-action what it can. That helps keep junk from building up, and it alerts me via SMS if something high priority shows up (e.g. user reporting a bug).

Point is there was never a point where it just ran for a long time and magically cleaned everything up just how I'd have wanted. I have like 7k emails in my inbox, that wouldn't be practical. But the number is going down now gradually, instead of up. I've had a chance to teach it and let it establish trust that it's doing things the right way. Which feels safer.

Everyone’s hung up on how nobody really does waterfall. Or course. But a LOT of people are vibing their code and making PRs and then getting buried in code reviews. Just like the article says, you can’t keep up that way. Obviously. Only agents can review code as fast as agents write it. But I find as of recently that agents review code better than people now, just like how they write it better. Gotta lean into it!

So maybe you should write it down?

I see this going differently than they do. An exoskeleton that makes you 5% stronger is not a game changer. Companies that lean fully into agents won’t just be “humans, but a little better.” They’ll move orders of magnitude faster, make decisions in less time, do it ask more efficiently. It will be no contest.

Plus you get a wildly different payoff the more you can take humans completely out of the loop. If it writes the code but humans review, you’re still bottleneck. If it designs and codes and reviews and goes back to designing, and so on, there’s no effective speed limit.

Big businesses aren’t going to work that way though. Which is why we shouldn’t be looking to them as thought leaders right now.

The 60x number is real but I know it'll be controversial. It's lines of code in a month vs. what I'd produce in a year by hand. Your mileage will vary. I'm not claiming everyone gets this. I'm saying the range of individual experiences is so wide that averages are meaningless.

Yes, this is another post about vibe coding. But it's a real product with real users at this point, more than a weekend project, and I think the health and communication effects are worth talking about even if the productivity claim doesn't land for you.

Happy to answer questions.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47060544

Points: 2

# Comments: 1

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47042537

Points: 1

# Comments: 1

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46988694

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

On the agent side, it just gets tools: send email, reply to email, list inbox, read message. Those tools call the AgentMail API. So the fake implements the same interface.. same send/reply/list/read methods, but recording calls instead of making HTTP requests. You can pre-populate inboxes with test messages, simulate "username taken" errors, etc.

AgentMail is actually one of the simpler fakes because there's no internal state to maintain. Sending a message doesn't affect what you'd read back from your own inbox. Some of the other fakes (like the database or file storage) need to actually simulate state in memory so writes are visible to subsequent reads. This one is closer to a stub.

Came to the same conclusion. I have an integration heavy codebase and it could hardly test anything if tests weren't allowed to call external services. So there are fake implementations of every API it touches: Anthropic, Gemini, Sprites, Brave, Slack, AgentMail, Notion, on and on and on. 22 fakes and climbing. Why not? They're essentially free to generate, it's just tokens.

I didn't go as far as recreating the UI of these services, though, as the article seems to be implying based on those screenshots. Just the APIs.

The question isn't whether agentic coders are perfect. Actually it isn't even whether they're better than humans. It's whether they're a net positive contribution. If you turn them loose in that kind of system, surrounded by checks and balances, does the system tend to accumulate bugs or remove them? Does it converge on high or low quality?

I think the answer as of Opus 4.5 or so is that they're a slight net positive and it converges on quality. You can set up the system and kind of supervise from a distance and they keep things under control. They tend to do the right thing. I think that's what they're saying in this article.

Happy to answer questions. Feedback welcome at preston@stumpy.ai

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46847316

Points: 2

# Comments: 0