[gregates]

It seems like the argument is roughly: we used to use CMS because we had comms & marketing people who don't know git. But we plan to replace them all with ChatGPT or Claude, which does. So now we don't need CMS.

(I didn't click through to the original post because it seems like another boring "will AI replace humans?" debate, but that's the sense I got from the repeated mention of "agents".)

[arionmiles]

Cursor replaced their CMS because Cursor is a 50-people team shipping content to one website. Cursor also has a "Designers are Developers" scenario so their entire team is well versed with git.

This setup is minimal and works for them for the moment, but the author argues (and reasonably well enough, IMO) that this won't scale when they have dedicated marketing and comms teams.

It's not at all about Cursor using the chance to replace a department with AI, the department doesn't exist in their case.

[gregates]

> Lee's argument for moving to code is that agents can work with code.

So do you think this is a misrepresentation of Lee's argument? Again, I couldn't be bothered to read the original, so I'm relying on this interpretation of the original.

[arionmiles]

There's no sense in answering your questions when you actively refuse to read the article. You're more susceptible to misunderstand the arguments given your apparent bias on AI-motivated downsizing, which I must reiterate is not covered in the article at all.

[gregates]

Alright you badgered me into reading the original and the linked post does not misinterpret it.

> Previously, we could @cursor and ask it to modify the code and content, but now we introduced a new CMS abstraction in between. Everything became a bit more clunky. We went back to clicking through UI menus versus asking agents to do things for us.

> With AI and coding agents, the cost of an abstraction has never been higher. I asked them: do we really need a CMS? Will people care if they have to use a chatbot to modify content versus a GUI?

> For many teams, the cost of the CMS abstraction is worth it. They need to have a portal where writers or marketers can log in, click a few buttons, and change the content.

> More importantly, the migration has already been worth it. The first day after, I merged a fix to the website from a cloud agent on my phone.

> The cost of abstractions with AI is very high.

The whole argument is about how it's easier to use agents to modify the website without a CMS in the way.

This is an AI company saying "if you buy our product you don't need a CMS" and a CMS company saying "nuh-uh, you still need a CMS".

The most interesting thing here is that the CMS company feels the need to respond to the AI company's argument publicly.

[antonvs]

> This is an AI company saying "if you buy our product you don't need a CMS"

No, it isn't. The AI company was explicit about their use case not being a general one:

> "For many teams, the cost of the CMS abstraction is worth it. They need to have a portal where writers or marketers can log in, click a few buttons, and change the content. It’s been like this since the dawn of time (WordPress)."

> Alright you badgered me into reading the original

It's not "badgering" you to point out that your comments are pointless if they're just going to speculate about something you haven't read. But if you feel "badgered", you could just not comment next time, that way no-one will "badger" you.

[eloisant]

I don't think that's the argument. The argument is that comms and marketing people don't know git, but now that they can use AI they will be able to use tools they couldn't use before.

Basically, if they ask for a change, can preview it, ask for follow ups if it's not what they wanted, then validate it when it's good, then they don't need a GUI.

[fragmede]

yeah, but the scale at where it doesn't work is that the change is to propagate everywhere and git and grep are not the right tools for that.