[m00x]

Agentic coding is absolutely not a failure. It's just not the 10x that CEOs really wanted it to be.

We learned that some tasks don't really benefit from AI while others do. My team went from 7 people to 2 (went to new teams, no layoffs), and we're doing the same amount if not more work than we used to.

Is it more draining and lacking of focused work? Yes. Is it more money for the business? Yes.

[hatefulheart]

Friend, you are commenting on a thread where one of the most prominent figures in tech (rightly or wrongly) is saying something did not meet expectations. As far as we can tell this is a man with every incentive to exaggerate and boost these products.

In my world, when something is expensive and doesn’t meet expectations it called a failure. Especially when something has been as hyped, scrutinized, defended and attacked as vibe coding.

Honestly, if you are the director of robotics at a firm I think it’s time you took a cold shower.

[Kudos]

Why are you assuming Zuck's expectations for progress of _his_ product have anything to do with the impact of that category of product for its users?

[hatefulheart]

I’m sorry, what’s the question? Genuinely not sure.

I’ll rephrase, Zuckerberg would certainly enjoy agentic coding to be a wild success because it means less staff and more products he could fail to create.

[Kudos]

Again, Zuck's success criteria don't necessarily align with that of others. In fact, I'd expect his success criteria are substantially different to most.

[alt227]

Making money? Seems to be the common success criteria for all.

[hlynurd]

It can both be a wild success and not what he expected.

[hatefulheart]

These two not mutually exclusive?

“Wild success” and “going slower than expected”?

Wake me up when words have a meaning again.

[ben_w]

> These two not mutually exclusive?

Correct, they are not.

Consider: Someone who "expects" their bank account to have $100M in it before they turn 30 and "only" gets it to $10M.

From the point of view of a normal sane person, they are experiencing "wild success", and yet at the same time they are definitely "going slower than [they] expected".

[Miner49er]

Pretty sure Zuck was talking about agents in general, not specifically Meta agents.

[Octoth0rpe]

More importantly, he's really probably talking about 'superintelligence', rather than just building genuinely useful and monetizable models.

[satvikpendem]

Why would Zuckerberg want to boost their AI, they have none to speak of after Llama really? Zuckerberg actually has every expectation to downplay AI so as to save face that Llama failed compared to frontier models.

[baq]

On the other side of this you have two companies growing revenue literally the fastest ever in any market segment, just for said tech. Somebody is spending this money and thinks it's worth it. Let's check back in six months.

[hatefulheart]

Sure thing, just like I’ve been checking back on people over the last 3 years. I’ll hit you up too.

[baq]

Past performance is not indicative of future results.

We're riding an exponential here for Pete's sake.

[hatefulheart]

We all know the future results of a lame horse.

[eiifr1]

Judging by his account he’s a big time booster suffering with psychosis

[eiifr1]

These all sound like nice sound bites.

Until you factor in many large firms are interested in cheap Chinese models.

Are you a frontier lab booster by any chance?

[Aeolun]

> Agentic coding is absolutely not a failure. It's just not the 10x that CEOs really wanted it to be.

It’s absolutely 10x faster for coding. But coding is only 10% of my job. The other 90% is figuring out what to code.

[ben_w]

From my experience with daily stand-ups, I think they can be a significant boost to that, too. Though you will absolutely have to wear a manager hat with their estimates and breakdowns, not just fire-and-forget, as they're often as not wildly over-optimistic about task complexity.

[diffeomorphism]

Being a "failure" means it fails to meet its success criteria.

If you claim 10x and deliver 3x, that is a failure. The 3x may still be impressive or a gamechanger or ..., but it still falls short of its promises.

[diegolas]

10x is a marketing gimmick in development, AI and pretty much everywhere

[KptMarchewa]

So what? Who cares about such a binary claims?

[diffeomorphism]

People making decisions.

Pay me 8x to get 10x, great. Pay me 8x to get 3x, nope.

[KptMarchewa]

I have not seen reasonable claims that people are paying 8x the salary of a SWE to get those 2-3x results.

[richiebful1]

Directionally, that's why companies are getting rid of token leaderboards and imposing limits on LLM costs. There's a diminishing marginal return to tokens

[KptMarchewa]

That's true and it's also very easy to game.

There is increase in (not only perceived) value _somewhere_ - IMO depends on the organizational culture. At my work I found going over 100$ on OpenAI/Anthropic's API pricing does not produce any meaningful additional output. It might be much different in different companies.

[walthamstow]

I am also leading a small team of myself and 2 others and we're getting a lot done. The short lines of communication of being a small group + the power of agents has been great for us.

[alfiedotwtf]

> Is it more draining and lacking of focused work?

To be completely honest, I’m living life right now. I love programming with my bare hands, but man I’m living just building a gajillion things a mile a minute with LLMs. I then come home and spend hours building stuff for myself using local models. I’ve never been so excited about just building shit, that I sometimes want to pull all nighters because I’ve been in the zone (a for work and at home).

Draining? Sorry… inject that LLM serum right into my veins

[otabdeveloper4]

> while others do

Now we just need to find those tasks. I want to believe.

> and we're doing the same amount if not more work than we used to

Zero evidence for this. It's programmers self-reporting their own productivity. (Have we not learned this lesson after 50 years of programming practice?)