4 ms·
I’m not saying he’s saying agents aren’t useful at all. It’s literally in the quotes I provided that he says they are useful for some subset of tasks. I’m sayi
by sarchertech 1y ago
I’m not saying he’s saying agents aren’t useful at all. It’s literally in the quotes I provided that he says they are useful for some subset of tasks.
I’m saying that he is answering the question “are agents useful at all”. not “can agents replace humans”.
His answer is mostly not. He generally prefers autocomplete. But they are useful for some limited tasks.
- weatherlite 1y ago> I’m not saying he’s saying agents aren’t useful at all I'm not saying you're saying he's saying agents aren't useful at all
- sarchertech 1y agoYou’re not the person I’m replying to. The person I’m replying to said >I don't think he is saying agents are not useful at all, just that they are not anywhere near the capability of human software developers. Implying I was supporting the first clause.
- sothatsit 1y agoSaying "He’s talking about whether agents are currently useful at all" is negatively loaded. It is very easy to take that and assume the answer is "no" based on the "at all". If you wanted to be more neutral, you could have said something like "He's also questioning how useful agents really are today". That wouldn't have implied that they're not useful at all, but instead that they're less useful than people are claiming.
- sarchertech 1y agoThat question doesn’t do enough to highlight how wrong the OP’s interpretation was. He’s going far beyond just stating that agents are less useful than people are claiming. Less useful than people are claiming fits the OP’s interpretation.