I'm not saying this particular individual is wrong in trying to build his solution to the market. Maybe there is some VC money to be made in this moment. But as AI in the workplace gets normalised, most people will either come up with solutions for their problems, or they will ask someone they know to help them with this.

scale will only matter if you are explicitly building a platform. That will still require real software engineering skills.

As for hardware interfacing, if I am not mistaken, almost all companies selling hardware right now still behave like babies when it comes to users getting access to the software inside it. They void warrantees, sue them, so on etc. For ambitious user driven software innovations in the hardware space the companies should open up their interfaces. I don't see this happening at all not only because of the companies' greed but also for regulatory and safety reasons.

the difference is not like the difference between gmail and gmailfs like you seem to be misunderstanding. a more accurate comparison would be the difference between curl, or httpie vs postman.

This is about controlling user behaviour, resisting standardisation efforts, to keep subscribers hooked to their models. If they keep their users on claude code, they don't have to adapt to evolving harness standards when shown increased usage across different harnesses. They will try to keep everything on their terms, on their poor quality of engineering, and the users accustomed to claude behaviour will be left with no quick way to switch to other models.

This strategy will keep working as long as they own a top tier frontier model with enough marketing hype behind it to blind unsophisticated users.

I am sure the models themselves are being RLHF tuned to work very well with the proprietary agent harnesses. This is all turning into a huge trap right in front of our eyes and the target is not just programmers but also companies whose core product involves software production.

Right now this paradigm is so novel to us that we don’t know if what is being saved is useful in anyway or just hoarding garbage.

There are some who (rightly IMO) just neatly squash their commits and destroy the working branch after merging. There are others who would rather preserve everything.

Although, rationally speaking they are not be the cause of so much misfortune. People should do whatever they can to get ahead. No one should accept poverty. As long as you don’t cut the throat of other innocents, it’s all fine.

One thing I would say is don’t put yourself down - like good things aren’t for you. I wouldn’t frame it as you don’t deserve. Everyone deserves a good life. Deserve takes you down a self destructive path. But because of the circumstance if your birth, you can’t have it - now.

Just because they can run tools, doesn't mean they run them reliably. Running tools is not a be all and end all of the problem.

Amdahl's law is still in play when it comes to agents orchestrating entire business processes on their own.

The entire article sounds like AI generated opinion.