[znpy]

> Why does EVERYTHING has to be geared towards agents?

Moving forward one can expect the most amount of code to be generated by agents, so it makes sense to optimise for that use case.

(Note that i’m not saying it’s good or bad)

[chrisandchris]

> the most amount of code generated by agents

Yes, I wholehartly agree. Coming from a week of agent-coding - out of pure curiosity - most code was generated by agents, which I had then to delete and rewrite to use like a quarter of statements to achieve the same, in an understandable, maintainable way.

But that's just my experience.

[jstanley]

People will very often say they "had to" do something, when in reality they merely "chose to" do that thing.

[znpy]

Well, at least some point people will “have” to.

If the industry is using agents and shipping a certain amount X of code/features in a certain amount if time, you either start using agents as well or you fall behind.

[chrisandchris]

It's not a shall/must, but it is a "I think I need to, because this is going to be unmaintanable 3 months from now".

[zahlman]

> so it makes sense to optimise for that use case.

How do the agent and human use cases meaningfully differ here, though?

I'm pretty sure GP's complaint is about the prose description, rather than the actual functionality.

[nijave]

I suspect it's much worse with agents. They tend to generate a lot more code and also more likely to make large refactors.

From the parent, making edits to different functions in the same file usually doesn't cause a merge conflict unless they're close together. Usually it's when you have the same lines being replaced with 2 different options.

I think humans naturally tend to try to avoid working on the same area of the codebase at the same time and have other mitigations like daily meetings to coordinate and organize.

That said, yeah, I think they're complaining about "slap AI on everything" as well