Don't try to deflect with pedantry.

The system is clearly resolving the users query.

Mixing that with the deterministic “play the songs requested instead of random crap” or even “play related classical music instead of random crap” is clearly not an impossibility.

It actually almost did the right thing. …but no, rather than handling the difficult edges cases like this, just do whatever for edges cases.

It is lazy.

Handling complex difficult edge cases is what differentiates good products from lazy ones.

What a baffling take.

There is no confusion as to which “AI” the OP is referring to.

The author wrote:

> Or does the AI work in so mysterious a way that the programmers need no longer take responsibility?

They are pondering, in general, if the non deterministic nature of AI is an excuse for bad products.

The Spotify DJ is a recommendation engine.

Its bad.

Its a lazy, bad implementation that relies on AI, instead of deterministic algorithms; eg. identify requested music and play it.

Instead it wants to “try something different”.

If you press play on the music player on your phone, do you expect it to “try something different?”

…or, is AI making developers and product managers lazy?

It is not a complicated take, and the example is, to me, pretty compelling.

This is confused and misguided.

The fundamental proposal here is that despite being bad MCP is the correct choice for Enterprise because:

> Organizations need architectures and processes that start to move beyond cowboy, vibe-coding culture to organizationally aligned agentic engineering practices. And for that, MCP is the right tool for orgs and enterprises.

…but, you can distill this to: the “cowboys” are off MCP because they've moved to yolo openclaw, where anything goes and there are no rules, no restrictions and no auditing.

…but thats a strawman from the twatter hype train.

Enterprises are not adopting openclaw.

It’s not “MCP or Openclaw”.

Thats a false dichotomy.

The correct question is: has MCP delivered the actual enterprise value and actual benefits it promised?

Or, were those empty promises?

Does the truely stupid MCP ui proposal actually work in practice?

Or, like the security and auditing, is it a disaster in practice, which was never really thought through carefully by the original authors?

It seems to me, that vendors are increasingly determining that controlled AI integrations with rbac are the correct way forward, but MCP has failed to deliver that.

Thats why MCP is dying off.

…because an open plugin ecosystem gives you broken crap like the Atlassian MCP server, and a bunch of maybe maybe 3rd party hacks.

Thats not what enterprises want, for all the reasons in the article.

MCP is never the right choice.

If you want to build an AI app that lets people “do random thing here”, then build an app.

Peak MCP is people trying to write a declarative UI as part of the MCP spec (1, I’m not kidding); which is “tldr; embed a webview of a web app and call it MCP”.

MCP is just “me too”; people want MCP to be an “AI App Store”; but the blunt, harsh reality is that it’s basically impossible to achieve that dream; that any MCP consumer can have the same app like experience for installed apps.

Seriously, if we can barely do that for browsers which have a consistent ui, there was never any hope even remotely that it would work out for the myriad of different MCP consumer apps.

It’s just stupid. Build a web app or an API.

You don’t need an MCP sever; agents can very happily interact with higher level functions.

(1) - https://blog.modelcontextprotocol.io/posts/2026-01-26-mcp-ap...

> If the models get better, this app will be killer.

Any random thing might happen in the future.

That doesnt have any bearing on how useful this is right now.

All we can do is judge right now how this compares to what it promises.