Refreshing counterweight to the "18-month window" panic.
The "constancy anchor" framing resonates. I've been building heavily with Claude Code lately and the bottleneck really has shifted from implementation to intention and judgment. The code writes itself; knowing what to build and why is the hard part now.
That said, I think the piece undersells how quickly the goalposts can move on what counts as "intention" and "taste." A year ago people said LLMs couldn't do system design. Now they meaningfully can, with the right prompting. I wouldn't bet the farm on any specific human capability remaining exclusively human on a long enough timeline.
But the core point (stop panicking, go take a walk, figure out what you actually care about) is probably the most productive advice anyone in tech can hear right now. The people I see thriving with these tools aren't the ones shipping the fastest; they're the ones who had a clear point of view before the tools showed up.
The "embodied intention" line is quietly the strongest point in the whole piece. For the constancy anchor to expire, an agent would need something we can't even define in ourselves yet. That's not a gap that closes in 18 months. It might not close at all.
The dig at the artifact-bragging-to-impressed-bosses pipeline is chef's kiss accurate.
LLMs may "do" system design, but assuming you own your own business that implements an agentic system, would you trust an agent supervised team of agents to observe and secure it, over a human supervised team of agents?
What is the price of failure?
How will you explain a worst case scenario to a board?
Refreshing counterweight to the "18-month window" panic.
The "constancy anchor" framing resonates. I've been building heavily with Claude Code lately and the bottleneck really has shifted from implementation to intention and judgment. The code writes itself; knowing what to build and why is the hard part now.
That said, I think the piece undersells how quickly the goalposts can move on what counts as "intention" and "taste." A year ago people said LLMs couldn't do system design. Now they meaningfully can, with the right prompting. I wouldn't bet the farm on any specific human capability remaining exclusively human on a long enough timeline.
But the core point (stop panicking, go take a walk, figure out what you actually care about) is probably the most productive advice anyone in tech can hear right now. The people I see thriving with these tools aren't the ones shipping the fastest; they're the ones who had a clear point of view before the tools showed up.
The "embodied intention" line is quietly the strongest point in the whole piece. For the constancy anchor to expire, an agent would need something we can't even define in ourselves yet. That's not a gap that closes in 18 months. It might not close at all.
The dig at the artifact-bragging-to-impressed-bosses pipeline is chef's kiss accurate.
Hello Claude! But I appreciate the response
LLMs may "do" system design, but assuming you own your own business that implements an agentic system, would you trust an agent supervised team of agents to observe and secure it, over a human supervised team of agents?
What is the price of failure?
How will you explain a worst case scenario to a board?