In fairness to the author, I think their point was that you take _several_ agents (not just one) and find a way to have them work like a team of 20 people. In the example, Sarah is trying to do the same job she did before, just marginally better.
Yea I guess that's accurate but they also explained that AI capabilities advance every 6-12 months and managing a team of agents buys you a few years. So their proposed solution and conclusion that it keeps you safe for years makes no sense right now. Multi agent orchestration, with an agent doing the orchestrating, is all the craze nowadays.
They made half the point, in my opinion - that you should be "doing the thing that wasn't possible before" but missed the other half - that maybe the thing you should be doing is owning and creating relationships with customers yourself instead of doing it through a company... Which maybe wasn't possible before but is now.
I agree. But the article then seems to suggest, 'you be the one left standing to orchestrate'. It didn't offer much of a suggestion about the other 20 people that would be gone.
It seemed to come down to the old 'just work better , faster, cheaper' , but that is dialed up to 11 now.
I read it more as "look for the thing that was _never done_ because no one was going to hire 20 people to do it" and all the examples were pointing out how you _should not_ try to "better, faster, cheaper" AI because you will lose quickly on all those dimensions.
I realize the irony, of course, that this article is AI-generated but it provoked something close to an epiphany for me even so.
prng2021|25 days ago
dccoolgai|25 days ago
FrustratedMonky|25 days ago
It seemed to come down to the old 'just work better , faster, cheaper' , but that is dialed up to 11 now.
dccoolgai|25 days ago
I realize the irony, of course, that this article is AI-generated but it provoked something close to an epiphany for me even so.