3 ms·
I think this comparison holds up. I've noticed that a lot of people I know who get really good results from LLMs and agents are people with significant people m
by simonw 2mo ago
I think this comparison holds up. I've noticed that a lot of people I know who get really good results from LLMs and agents are people with significant people management experience.
Companies like Anthropic seem to understand that too. It's impressive how many CTOs and CEOs Anthropic have hired for individual contributor positions, which I think is because those leadership skills transfer surprisingly well to working with agents.
Of course, managing agents is massively easier than managing humans! You don't have to consider the agent's own desires, goals, opinions, or emotional state when telling them what to do. Humans have agency; agents (despite the name) do not.
- qwqah 2mo ago[flagged]
- danielbln 2mo agoMaybe speak for yourself, or if you insist on that tone, don't even do that.
- nx77 2mo agoGive some examples of the good results these kind of people are getting out of it...
- ceejayoz 2mo agohttps://status.claude.com/ https://status.claude.com/
- RobertasTa 2mo ago[flagged]
- GPerson 2mo agoThe people I’m seeing getting really good results are the opposite. Strange.
- simonw 2mo agoYou mean they have zero management experience at all?
- slopinthebag 2mo agoIf you consider Anthropic’s software as “good results” than I’m inclined to believe it’s the opposite.
- sidharthkmenon 2mo agobut managing humans is simpler in many ways, too: there's accountability for one. and it's much easier to reason about the capability boundary of a human.