I think its pretty straightforward no? If agents are doing all of the work, they'd probably need to not have bottlenecks. This is going to be any company in the future, not just Anthropic. Wouldn't you agree.?
Yet IMO the admin controls Claude provides just started to be adequate for a small company a few weeks ago (and even so are still ridiculously fragmented and seem fragily designed and not exhaustively documented), so I can't even imagine for a big company.
Do you need that rate of change to make basic controls? I'm not sure. Do we see such dramatic fast evolution in the products? Not really. Are bugs we report actually fixed? I tried once and it just auto closed.
Anthropic should optimise for something more interesting than number of merges per second.
Because tokens have a cost. CI jobs have a cost. Organization objectives and goals have a cost. Features have a cost. Code has a cost.
---
So in a world where agents do all the work... why are they not able to control operating costs AT ALL?
Why is the right operating method the one that happens to blow an absolute shit load of cash on - wait for it - internal tooling that the customers don't give a fuck about?
Customers do not care how the internal business operates. They care about value delivered. I'm absolutely not convinced that this "churn churn churn" method of operating is actually delivering enough extra value for the cost it incurs.
---
Now - that said, I think there are some fair points here that are worth considering, mainly around whether a distributed version control system (git) is really the right call for agents that need to coordinate much more closely than most human developers did.
I think that's a directionally appropriate insight, and worth considering.
What I don't find compelling at all is the idea that many (any, really) companies should expect to be running millions of ci jobs a day, and mergings hundreds of thousands of prs/commits. That reeks of "I have cash to blow and don't care".