I'm trying to understand your point of view, but it kind of just sounds like you're against learning how to use tools efficiently?

I mean, agentic coding software is hardly the first tool to exist where learning some idiosyncrasies of how to use it well can result in more efficiency and cost savings.

▲

mccoyb 4 hours ago | parent [-]

It's very easy to understand:

- I'm happy to learn how to use tools efficiently

- I like to be able to inspect my tools

- I'm against tools changing underneath me

Are you against any of these points?

▲

csallen 4 hours ago | parent [-]

I think I'm happy about the first two. The third I suppose I care less about, just because I've kind of become used to it from decades working on the internet where many businesses/tools/apps are more like services and less like physical tools that never change.

▲

RossBencina 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> The third I suppose I care less about, just because I've kind of become used to it

I've never become used to it. My impression is that the constant churn has accelerated. Plausible drivers are (1) normalize novelty as desirable (like fast fashion), (2) product developer/designer incentive structures that reward revolutionary change over progressive refinement. The global switch to subscription models and continuous deployment didn't help.

> more like services and less like physical tools that never change.

I'm not sure that constant change is a characteristic feature of services, especially not professional services.

It used to be that you bought a piece of software and used that version until you decided it was worth upgrading, like a particular physical tool. The software still evolved, just like the design of physical tools can, in principle, evolve.

All that said, agentic AI tooling is evolving so rapidly I'm not sure an expectation of stability is realistic.

	▲	Wowfunhappy 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> It used to be that you bought a piece of software and used that version until you decided it was worth upgrading, like a particular physical tool. But Claude is running on someone else's computer, not yours, so it's not Photoshop so much as AWS. Or a rented server farm, if AWS is too new school for you. Of course there's an ongoing cost! And if you configure the server to use more electricity, you get billed more. If you want to do agentic tooling locally, you can do that—the models aren't quite as good, but they're not bad either. But be warned, for the large models you're going to have to acquire some serious hardware, to the point where you may wish you'd chosen to just rent it instead!

▲

mccoyb 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I agree that the third seems to be implied by industry, but I'd argue that it's not clear that it is necessary -- and it is subtle whether or not it is beneficial?

My contention is that we should be building towards less churn, not more. I'm aware that some churn is the cost of engaging in any sort of enterprise, but I'm deeply suspicious of an AI company inserting themselves between me, and the tasks I wish to do with my device -- with a completely opaque system that I can't really "learn".