I tend to agree quite a bit.
I created a ambient background agent for my projects that does just that.
It is there, in the background, constantly analysing my code and opening PRs to make it better.
The hard part is finding a definition of "better" and for now it is whatever makes the longer and type checker happy.
But overall it is a pleasure to use.
If there’s one take away it’s that these agents need more, not less, oversight. I don’t agree at all with the “just remove a few tools and you can remove the human from the loop” approach. It just reduces the blast radius in case the agent gets it wrong, not the fact that it gets it wrong.
I crafted the AI loop to do exactly what I would be doing by manually.
Out of 10 PRs, 6 to 7 gets merged. The other simply get closed.
Moltbot is OpenClaw, AutoGPT was born significantly before. I just couldn’t read after the first paragraph, I’ve lost the trust entirely, whatever/whoever wrote it.
Doesn’t mean it’s a good idea, though.
This stuff is negative value.
But the more you read the article the more the point is lost. The prescriptions given aren't ambient?
CLI: a good command-line interface makes it easy for an agent loop to interact with your system and saves tokens.
Specs: Declarative configs, schemas, manifests. Artifacts that state the desired outcome, not the steps.
Reconciliation loops: you declare the target state, let the system continuously converge toward it. Detect if something drifts.
(seems you're talking to the AI above (and you'll need to refine just like a conversation), it's just not synchronously in chat)The gripe seems to be specifically with being able to chat with the AI. Yes, ideally the AI just knows to do stuff. But the chat interface is also the reason every Bob and Sarah has chatGPT in their pocket. It's also just growing pains.
It might be nice to have something simple and cheap for basic text classification, but I'm not sure what to use. (My websites are written in Deno.)
orliesaurus•1h ago
claysmithr•39m ago
doubled112•18m ago