> t took humans years to write the tests by hand, and the agents still failed to converge.

I think there is some hazard in assuming that what agents fail at today they will continue to fail on in the future.

What I mean is, if we take the optimistic view of agents continuing to improve on the trajectory they have started at for one or two years, then it is worth while considering what tools and infrastructure we will need for them. Companies that start to build that now for the future they assume is coming are going to be better positioned than people who wake up to a new reality in two years.

▲

pmbauer 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> I think there is some hazard in assuming that what agents fail at today they will continue to fail on in the future.

I think there is some hazard in assuming a seemingly exponential curve has no asymptotes, otherwise known as faith.

▲

zoogeny an hour ago | parent [-]

That is what the market is for!

I'm just pointing out "we don't need this right now" isn't necessarily an argument against "we don't need this".

There is a saying that isn't perfect but may apply: better to have it and not need it then to need it and not have it.

Here is another way of looking at it. Let's say agents don't meet the hyped up expectations and we build all of this robust tooling for nothing. So we have all of this work towards creating autonomous testing systems but we don't have the autonomous agents. That still seems like a decent outcome.

When we plan around optimistic views of the future, we tend to build generally useful things.

	▲	FridgeSeal 33 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		The market stopped being remotely useful measurement of…anything quite a while ago.