On reflection, I like it - it's weird. Old internet weird. Like someone with a couple hundred bucks and some time on their hands wants to do something they think is fun or funny... it feels human. I think we need more of this. Extra points for using a sketchy o365 form that looks like a scam.
My org now sends some portion of our requests to non-anthropic models because refusal has become common from Claude. The requests themselves aren't dangerous, we find that benign requests in biological science wind up being blocked semi-frequently.
If it gets worse in future releases, we'd likely step fully away towards more useful (for us) models even if they're less capable.
I think that "deciding what types of code can be reliably handed off to AI" might be missing from the list. It's orders of magnitude easier to nail 80% all the time than 100% all the time. I could see standalone products even developing in this space.
Tools exist to be an energy/effort multiplier, so it's pretty intuitive that increasing that multiplier will make it easier to get more done.
In practice it's pretty difficult to find the balance between yak shaving and piling in unnecessary manual labour by just trying to do the work with existing (possibly poorly fitting) tools.
If you're planning to stick with your current tools for a long time, each 1% improvement compounds massively over time, so that balance is probably much closer to yak shaving than most people might realise.
Imo there's a huge blind spot forming between 6 and 8 when talking to people and in reading posts by various agent evangelists - few people seem to be focussing on building "high quality" changes vs maximising throughput of low quality work items.
My (boring b2b/b2e) org has scripts that wrap a small handful of agent calls to handle/automate our workflow. These have been incredibly valuable.
We still 'yolo' into PRs, use agents to improve code quality, do initial checks via gating. We're trying to get docs working through the same approach. We see huge value in automating and lightweight orchestration of agents, but other parts of the whole system are the bottleneck, so theres no real point in running more than a couple of agents concurrently - claude could already build a low quality version our entire backlog in a week.
Is anyone exploring the (imo more practically useful today) space of using agents to put together better changes vs "more commits"?
My org has built internal tooling that approximates this. It's incredibly valuable from a manual test perspective though we haven't managed to get the agent part working well, app startup times (10+ min) make iterating hard.
Do you have customers who have faced/solved this problem? If so, how did they do it -- it seems like a killer on the approach?
This is really nice and a very original take. It feels good on mobile / other touch devices.
I'd love to see it feel a bit more polished on desktop (maybe I'll give that a shot if I find a bit of spare time!) - I could see a few simple things like adding up/down arrows to the picked item and wiring into up and down arrow presses going a long way to making it work really well there too.
Genuinely, thank you for sharing this, it's something different and interesting.
If you have different stuff available, you might choose to only cache/microoptimise the pages served to 98% of your userbase, which would lead to this type of effect with no malicious intent.
On reflection, I like it - it's weird. Old internet weird. Like someone with a couple hundred bucks and some time on their hands wants to do something they think is fun or funny... it feels human. I think we need more of this. Extra points for using a sketchy o365 form that looks like a scam.