> A protocol must offer direct benefits to users, so that they keep participating in the network

As someone who tried to give all of the decentralized social networks a shot... something I realised along the way is that they are never going to fly because they are not giving you dopamine kicks like the big tech giants are. I ended up forgetting to visit Lemmy or Pixelfed or <whatever> because I had 2-3 times when I opened up the app and saw the exact same content, giving me a feeling of "nothing is happening here" and thus, I didn't need to check in.

I mean, even Signal has that Instagram story function but I have never seen a contact use it because no one goes to Signal "just to scroll" or whatever. They go there to send or read a message.

Any social media needs content for people to visit. They need to make people feel like they are missing out if they are not visiting. Otherwise, they're just going to end up as an app on the phone which is never opened.

> I find anything else, I spend more time coaxing them into doing 85% of what I need that I'm better off doing it myself.

You must be working in a very niche field with very niche functionality if that's the case? I work at a company just outside of FAANG and I work in compliance. Not a terribly complex domain but very complicated scale and data integrity requirements.

I haven't written a single line of code manually in 2 weeks. Opus 4.6 just... works. Even if I don't give it all the context it just seems to figure things out. Occasionally it'll make an architectural error because it doesn't quite understand how the microservices interact. But these are non-trivial errors (i.e. humans could have made them as well) and when we identify such an error, we update the team-shared CLAUDE.md to make sure future agents don't repeat the error.

Same. Whenever an article like this one pops up the comments seem to be filled with confirmation bias. People who don't see a productivity boost agree with the article.

I work at tech company just outside of big tech and I feel fairly confident that we won't have a need for the amount of developers we currently have within 3-4 years.

The bottleneck right now is reviewing and I think it's just a matter of time before our leadership removes the requirement for human code reviews (I am already seeing signs of this ("Maybe for code behind feature flags we don't need code reviews?").

Whenever there's an incident, there is a pagerduty trigger to an agent looking at the metrics, logs, software component graphs, and gives you an hypothesis on what the incident is due to. When I push a branch with test failures, I get one-click buttons in my PR to append commits fixing those tests failures (i.e. an agent analyses the code, the jira ticket, the tests, etc. and suggests a fix for the tests failing). We have a Slack agent we can ping in trivial feature requests (or bugs) in our support channels.

The agents are being integrated at every step. And it's not like the agents will stop improving. The difference between GPT3.5 and Opus 4.6 is so massive. So what will the models look like in 5 years from now?

We're cooked and the easiest way to tell someone works at a company who hasn't come very far in their AI journey is that they're not worried.