> The problem with American culture specifically is that it treats "happiness" as a goal, rather than a fleeting feeling that is probably better described with a more specific word (joy, accomplishment, excitement, satisfaction, contentment).
Does it really? The sentiment of your post is pretty widespread at this point. It's kind of like saying "our culture is so commercialized" but everyone will tell you they're sick of commercialism.
> (I preface that this is primarily relevant for orgs and enterprises; it really has no relevance for individual vibe-coders)
The thing about tools that "democratize" software development, whether it is Visual Studio/Delphi/QT or LLMs, is that you wind up with people in organizations building internal tools on which business processes will depend who do not understand that centralization is key. They will build these tools in ignorance of the necessity of centralization-centric approaches (APIs, MCP, etc.) and create Byzantine architectures revolving around file transfers, with increasing epicycles to try to overcome the pitfalls of such an approach.
There's a distinction between individual devs and organizations like Amazons or even a medium sized startup.
Once you have 10-20 people using agents in wildly different ways getting wildly different results, the question of "how do I baseline the capabilities across my team?" becomes very real.
In our team, we want to let every dev use the agent harness that they are comfortable with and that means we need a standard mechanism of delivering standard capabilities, config, and content across the org.
I don't see it as democratization versus corporate facism in so much as it is "can we get consistent output from developers of varying degrees of skill using these agents in different ways?"
Except we're not, in this case. Oracle is not hiding the fact that the cuts are due to rising costs and expenses, rather than actualized efficiency gains. This is in contrast to everyone else, ex. Dorsey's block, who are putting a brave face on cuts, saying it's simply due to efficiency gains from AI. The question is: why are their statements being taken at face value?
> This feels like a new kind of problem. It’s not the classic technical debt - no human consciously chose to re-create three different UIs, all almost the same. It’s something more specific to how agents write code.
I don't really see how it's any different than if humans decided to do it.
> Unlike tech debt, agentic debt is self-reinforcing.
How is tech debt not self-reinforcing? "Well, the last guy just copy-pasted this code for a new purpose instead of accomodating the new case, so rather than consolidate the codebase, I will just do the same, since it is too far gone?
In general, I agree with the problem. But I think it's a change in speed, not direction.
Interesting, I feel humans are a lot more likely to consolidate because it's easier to reason / maintain when there's one component vs two.
Agree that it's _possible_ people don't do it, and things end up in a decaying codebase. But in my experience people tend to leave things better than they found them (or that's the culture I like to promote, at least when dealing with humans)
Does it really? The sentiment of your post is pretty widespread at this point. It's kind of like saying "our culture is so commercialized" but everyone will tell you they're sick of commercialism.
reply