I genuinely don't understand the core value they're pitching here. The tech is interesting, and I'm not trying to under cut that, but I question the idea that this is directionally valuable advice to nearly any company.

This amount of churn feels like a thing only possible with no real profit motives and a lot of money to waste.

Lots of activity is not necessarily synonymous with productivity, and it carries real cost.

So I think the design here is interesting, and the concepts seem applicable to where some agentic development may end up, but I question the underlying principles that drive this being the right solution space at all. At least if the goal is a profitable company.

▲

simianwords 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I think its pretty straightforward no? If agents are doing all of the work, they'd probably need to not have bottlenecks. This is going to be any company in the future, not just Anthropic. Wouldn't you agree.?

	▲	temac an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		30000 a day seems already beyond absurd, it's one merge every 2.9s. I'm sure they will soon have more than one merge per second. From the graph, the rate was slightly lower but already insane as fuck the whole summer. An just regularly high to insane high sooner this year. Yet IMO the admin controls Claude provides just started to be adequate for a small company a few weeks ago (and even so are still ridiculously fragmented and seem fragily designed and not exhaustively documented), so I can't even imagine for a big company. Do you need that rate of change to make basic controls? I'm not sure. Do we see such dramatic fast evolution in the products? Not really. Are bugs we report actually fixed? I tried once and it just auto closed. Anthropic should optimise for something more interesting than number of merges per second.
	▲	NoDodgeQuestion 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		any company, merge 30,000 code changes per day? do not agree