Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Kevin Kasaei's avatar

The Mercedes number is the strongest evidence here and it points at something narrower than the essay claims. A COBOL migration is bounded, has an oracle, and the output is checkable against the input. That is precisely the class where agents compound, and eight months to eight days is real.

The 90% figure is a different kind of number. Share of code authored is an input measure and it has never predicted throughput. Faros telemetry across 22,000 developers has merge rate per developer up 16.2%, while median time in review is up 441.5% and incidents per pull request up 242.7%. Authored share went to a very large number and the rate of change that actually ships moved 16%. The constraint moved from writing to reviewing and operating, and only one of those has an agent.

Worth flagging that the engineers-will-tell-you evidence is self-report. METR ran 16 experienced developers on their own repositories with screen recording: forecast 24% faster, measured 19% slower, and afterwards they still reported a 20% speedup. The bricklayer to architect shift looks right to me. The 100x is a claim about the review and operate half of the job, and that half has barely been measured.

空より照らす無為の真人's avatar

AIの本当の革命は、人間を1000倍働かせることではない。 「働くことこそ価値である」という執着そのものを空じる可能性にある。

そして『法華経』からさらに一歩進めれば、

技術の価値は、どれだけ人間を超えたかではなく、どれだけ多くの人間の可能性を開いたかによって測られる。

Cognitionが「1000x engineer」を生むだけなら、これは巨大な生産性革命です。

しかし、これまで創る側に立てなかった無数の人を創る側へ連れていくなら――

それは少しだけ、「一仏乗のテクノロジー」に近づくのだと思います。

10 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?