752 karma · joined June 16, 2010
I agree it would be neat.
But, when did we conclude this "should" be possible and thus warrant such a whiny post?
Now, can someone please help me get some data of this Iomega ZIPdrive disc?
I'm also old enough to have started my career learning the rational unified process and then progressed through XP, agile, scrum etc
My process is I spend 2-3 hours writing a "spec" focusing on acceptance criteria and then by the end of the day I have a working, tested next version of a feature that I push to production.
I don't see how using a spec has made me less agile. My iteration takes 8 hours.
However, I see tons of useless specs. A spec is not a prompt. It's an actual definition of how to tell if something is behaving as intended or not.
People are notoriously bad at thinking about correctness in each scenario which is why vibe coding is so big.
People defer thinking about what correct and incorrect actually looks like for a whole wide scope of scenarios and instead choose to discover through trial and error.
I get 20x ROI on well defined, comprehensive, end to end acceptance tests that the AI can run. They fix everything from big picture functionality to minor logic errors.
I've been on Ubuntu and PopOS for the last 15 years.
So what about this solution is actually agentic?
Overall, it sounds like you sat down and did a proper business process analysis and automated it.
Your subagents for sure have no autonomy and are just execution steps in a classic workflow except you happen to be calling an LLM.
Does the orchestrating agent adapt the process between invocations depending on the data and does it do so in any way more complex than a simple if then branch?
As someone technical, I start, I build something simple quickly but then start thinking edge cases, exception handling, alternate flows etc and suddenly all that is easier to handle in code directly.
Much of the power of these solutions is the pre made integrations into other systems, and not the flow control to someone technical. Once you realize that, you start looking for integration platforms and not workflow.
[bring on the downvotes]
If the governing part at the time of the Nazi trials actually held each and every person involved accountable, would they win the next election?
If a company holds their employees to the actual standards laid out by their policies or guidelines, what would attrition look like? Would they immediately be short staffed critial roles? Would they loose a key employee at a very inconventient time?
These are the real reasons preventing us from holding people accountable.
Imagine having your customers write feature requests for your saas, that immediately triggers code generation and a PR. A virtual environment with that PR is spun up and served to that customer for feedback and refinement. Loop until customer has implemented the feature they would like to see in your product.
Enterprise plan only, obviously.
It's a cop out way to differentiate because you are clearly not comparing apples to apples.
You have a fraction of the features and a fraction of the bug fixes. You are trying to make it sound like you are a 1:1 replacement, when you are not.
Please post again 10 years from now after you have added all the bloat your users request and handled all the edge cases you don't yet understand.
If you are still lighter than a react button...that will be news worthy.
So I billed them for the next 3 months to write a Spring IOC clone, doing exactly the same thing to use on the project.
If meant to prevent repeat bad behavior, then simply reprogramming the computer accomplished the same end goal.
Accountability is really just a means to an end which can be similarly accomplished in other ways with machines which isn't possible with humans.
You want to be one of those "go to" people! They are put on the most challenging assignments, the most exciting opportunities, more often promoted, protected from above, last to let go and frequently asked to follow that leader to new assignments at new companies usually with higher titles and better comp.
It seems to me you have been spotted by your Sr. Director and given an opportunity to prove yourself as you did in your prior team. It's a logical move to take a high performer from one team, and try to prop up an underperforming team. It's about what's good for the company.
If this fails, you won't necessarily be blamed, but you'll have lost an opportunity to really stand out amongst any other engineer at your level and earn the status of your Sr. Director's "go to" person.
Your value is in being a versatile, competent "can do anything, anywhere and happy to do it" type of resource who can be thrown into the biggest messes and come out looking good.
I understand the sentiment around that managers should do a better job and many metrics based tools miss out on people performing necessary tasks that won't show up in the metrics. The people I have managed who fit those criteria were very obvious and it was known their code delivery was suffering because they were helping others. The good players always stood out.
The areas where I had wished we had comprehensive people metrics were frequently for remote employees on drastically different time zones where daily regular interaction was difficult or where there was some clear under-performance but the WHY was unclear.
It can be very tricky being a manager and to getting to the bottom of WHY someone isn't performing. Should a PIP be necessary, it's very important to identify specific behaviors that need improvement.
During 1:1s, under-performing employees will provide the most vague explanations, copious excuses, blame other factors. Even when I've cross checked with their peers, no one wanted to really give any clear answers as to why something was late, had abnormal amount of issues, or development was standing still altogether. People were clearly avoiding the questions.
Everyone here seems to assume direct reports are always honest, open and transparent. They are not, and especially when things are not going well.
Manager need a way to verify what they are hearing. Do the metrics support the claims, or is someone who's slacking just BSing you. It's not where you get your primary information on performance, it's what you use to verify your own suspicions or find supporting evidence.
For example, an employee who has a history of not testing their code and has in their development plan to improve on that. During 1:1s, the question comes up and invariably, every time I've been positively assured they are making great progress and everything is being tested.
I now have 3 options: 1. perform my own review of their code to verify their claim 2. get a high level metric that testing has improved 3. trust what they are saying, move on and throw the dice that everything will be fine
Option 1 is obviously the best but very micro-managerial and will clearly demonstrate I don't trust their word, further demotivating the individual
Option 2 would be a good place to start unless employee gives me further reason to go with option 1
Option 3 is what shitty managers do
So, it would be logical to think over time, content friendly to AI bots will be favored over anything optimized for humans.
Now, I don't know what incentives will be put in place for content creators by AI companies, because if no one is viewing pages, then no one is viewing ads so what pays for all this content... no idea?
Maybe AI companies will need to adopt a Spotify type of payment model where authors are paid cents each time their content is referenced.
I hope it will change, but I have been observing more and more how people, out of share convenience, just go to chatgpt for anything now, they don't even bother with a Google search.
I have had to build these kinds of abstractions several times in the past and figured there must be something out there already but haven't found anything.