Regardless though, this is what I mean, we now have 3 definitions for an agent; an instance of a model (which is how I think of it), a model configuration for a given task (from another commenter) and your definition which appears to be somewhere between the two, though it seems we agree with what a harness is.

I'm not sure harness is the right word either, but that seems to be what the industry has settled on so I'll concede on that, but surely the agent is the thing doing the work (which I guess is the model, or an instance of the model which is why agent is different?), whereas the harness is how the user interacts with the agent. We've had ways to describe that relationship before; client and server, frontend and backend, but again, I'll concede that the shiny new thing doesn't want to use boring old terminology, but I think some consistency and logic in the shiny new terminology is pretty important

That isn't specifically about fx of course, more of a general industry complaint

Mine is using the AI 300 chip and is presumably on the latest bios so this specifically wouldn't be a problem for me, but it doesn't fill me with future confidence either, though I suppose if you look hard enough you can find similar stories about any manufacturer

Whether or not LLM's become an electric motor or an NFT, or something in between, only time will tell

Maybe next they'll ask maintainers to go from a bracket to a specific age, and then next ask for verification, but the jump from specific age to verification is big enough that there'll be just as much resistance to it.

From what I've seen, I don't think so if we're talking about like-for-like quality. Maybe as an absolute best case scenario, but more typically it's more like you can build in an hour with AI whereas without AI it might take you 2 or 3.

Even thats highly task dependant, and doesn't scale as you'd expect (eg 1 hour == 2 hours, but 1 month =/= 2 months), and at times even using AI can slow things down, at its worst case more severely than at it'd speed you up at it's best.

Now if you're willing to throw like-for-like out the window, that 1h==1w could be achieved easily, maybe even more. But then again, I feel like I could do a lot more in an hour if I didn't care about quality either, not as fast as AI but much faster than I am currently.

Can't have the rainbow without the rain as they say

Also importantly, can it be a neovim? Neovim hasn't had literal trillions invested over it in the space of just 5 years, local llm's aside can those smaller productivity gains justify the huge investment put into them, and which will continue to be needed for further model development?

Why do you think it would? If 99% of people never use those services, why do you expect they'd continue to exist? Just to justify the existence of some temporary class of worker to provide services that, for some reason, aren't fulfilled by the AI?

> Your diamond example is just swapping which goods are scarce.

Not at all. If you're starving and someone offers you the last diamond in the world for a weeks worth of food, its unlikely to be a worthwhile trade since without the food you'd die, and then (to you), the diamond is entirely worthless. Scarcity raising prices is a fundamental law of our current economic system, its not a fundamental law of reality