I'd buy the core thesis and appreciate the concern.
I do think security is going to require more, not, less human investment as attackers may be running automated vulnerability screens from the outside that you must counter, as well. Without rigorous internal processes to manage and screen all changes and upgrades, companies risk leaving themselves open.
One design change which limits exposure is to have more local-first apps or experiences so there's less cloud / server to computer interactions to secure.
The argument I was trying to make is that we (in the US) have an economic and political system where decisions are made by the person/party with the most economic power. I shorthand by saying it's "by auction."
When you do that at a system-level you have a problem where the decision maker is making trade-off decisions for the system based on their best interests vs the system.
This problem happens in product/software companies at a different scale where orgs have different power and may influence a product in a way that fails the users and eventually isn't in best interests of the system.
I have been curious about the “what must be true” for AI data centers to be brought online. I wanted a systemic review to understand the technical supply chain to deliver modern inference.
What I found is the AI buildout is being slowed by people declining the offer, some on their porches, some on planning commissions, some at the trading floor of a capacity auction. There's also a few single points of failure in the supply chain.
The AI buildout, as I learned, is a bigger test of our entire economic, political, and societal system.
After a trip to a textile museum, I had to research once I saw the obvious connection. I wrote this for anyone who loves tracking the evolution of ideas vs acting like everything is new and invented from nothing.
Looking forward to discussing and geeking out on computing history.
I think the insight for me in researching all this was just popping my bubble that thought of capitalism and what's wrong with it through the lens I was taught which was mainly political.
Once I reframed through the "right to not compete" or not participate in capitalism and retain dignity, the system and how it's taking us further from that ability became clear.
For anyone versed in history, the first two paragraphs are honestly difficult to read, because of the ingnorance displayed. If you do not get the types of critical responses you're hoping for, thats why.
I've got to run, but for now: you are asking for someone else practically invisible to you, to negotiate/compete on your behalf. The "enclosure" you are talking about is exactly this. It's literally a mindset, and when you are in it you do not realize what it really is. The automation dividend will make it possible for the first time, for somone to create abundance for people they don't care about. And people will. But even today, doing this effectively is really really hard. Technology makes pies bigger, but most pies we eat from are still very limited. Who gets to decide? You should go live in rural frugality in an agrarian society, it will peel the shells from your eyes. You may find that how things work are in reality diametrically opposed to his you thought.
the article doesn't argue for a capitalist cohort to support any other. Rather it asks for limits to the capitalists reach, such that other systems can use resources in other ways and preserve non cash systems.
it’s not discussed in this post but in another right after I discuss the modeling I was doing on tech debt and finding the game to improve agent outcomes was reducing context.
functional programming accomplishes that. I can’t claim it’s the only way, but it’s one that’s well understood in the community
What makes is special about "agentic development" vs reducing context requirements, reducing cognitive burden, etc for human development too? "A human developer builds a mental model of a codebase over months"—yeah, that makes onboarding to a codebase very time consuming, expensive, and error-prone.
So why is "better for agents" distinct from "better for humans"?
Agents can simply be told to write code in a functional style. They won’t complain. Think of it like a constraint system or proofs system. The agent can better reason about the code and side effects. Etc.
Agents are very good at following and validating constraints and hill climbing. This makes sense to me. Humans benefit too, but it is hard to get a bunch of humans to follow the style and maintain it over time.
Agents are useful because they don't inherit context from their parent context. They're basically "compaction" at a small scale. They succeed because context pollution create greater indeterminancy. The fact that you can spin up many of them is not primary benefit of them.
>finding the game to improve agent outcomes was reducing context
I think modularization will further reduce context. I am planning to play with your SUPER and SPIRALS idea and use modularization on top via Vertical Slice Architecture or modular monolith where each module is isolated and has a contract.
I've explored Clojure after talking to Metabase about how it had benefited them. That said, it was years ago so I can't claim it influenced this work.
The framework was designed to be a language agnostic way of sharing best practices to bias agent behavior towards a more scalable end. I initially used it when I was working with a team to do some massive refactoring/clean up across the codebase. We didn't come to an acronym but similar principles and it was "testable" and easy to push back on PRs that weren't aligned with the principles.
That said, it may be interesting to see if I could replace all that context and just say -- "code it like you would with Clojure"
Good luck with the showing!