upvote
> We will figure out what we want to build later.

Once the automator automates itself fast enough, we won't have the ability to opine what gets built. The LLM will decide. Just like right now sometimes LLMs delete tests so they pass, they could just delete humanity if humans get in their way.

reply
> The software world is very close to building a super intelligent senior software developer.

Yeah. Two more weeks, as they say. Just need to iron out some kinks.

reply
It's the error rate. That's what everyone found when they were trying to go Full Auto with OpenClaw in February.

You can rely on it like 95% of the time but that means if you keep it running continuously the error rate rapidly approaches 100%. That's getting a little better with each release, and it might actually hit the point where you can more or less trust it indefinitely (on well defined workflows).

Or at least it would, if context window permitted...

reply
> The software world is very close to building a super intelligent senior software developer. Companies like this will ask all the best things a software engineer does automatically. Now claude will add it into the coding agents itself.

Except Claude is more expensive than an actual senior software developer. Otherwise, why are many companies terrified of the usage bill that gets printed on the invoice?

The nonsense in "tokenmaxxing" was a complete marketing scam and illusion of cheap tokens which in reality were heavily subsidized.

The entire point is detecting bad code before it reaches production. [0] AI generated or not.

[0] https://sketch.dev/blog/our-first-outage-from-llm-written-co...

reply