No, because that way you give way too much power to a bunch of manipulating and manipulated idiots making a decision at a particular point in time.

So, I can go out and defame and lie and make death threats, and if I have my magical tiny disclaimer sticker on my t-shirt that says "maybe you shouldn't trust me" I'm in the clear? "Courts hate this one trick" -- well, maybe not anymore?

"Purchase the service as needed" - do you expect needs to go up or down with time? Also, do you expect AI costs to go up or down with time? And it's not exactly AWS compute that they're booking, in terms of elastic scaling. And I'm sure you're well aware that when institutions or organisations build/plan infrastructure around MS, it's really, really hard and costly to get off it. Or you think they can just replace the agents with something else that's magically cheaper?

And you think AI agents are the budget-conscious answer? I'd love to see the budget allocated to (or, required by) MS AI, and more importantly, how it evolves in the following year, with the IPO races doing the rounds now. It would be a shame if AI becomes more expensive and then it's too late to get rid of it due to sunken costs, right?

There are precise automation systems that can be developed to do the admin work. Not non-deterministic agents. If the underlying systems are an archaic clusterfuck already (and afaik it is), unleashing the unreliable agents on it is going to be ... double plus shit?

That's where the taxpayer money will go? To even less interaction with humans, and even more money to Microsoft and its unreliable shitty software?

Obviously the quality goes up to 11x, so enjoy the price increase

Yeah exactly. It reminds me of "If force doesn’t solve your problem, you’re simply not applying enough force", which sounds as intelligent and thoughtful as our cavemen ancestors of yore.

... "and break things" will follow. What's gonna break first though? The companies? The CEOs' illusions? The workers? The economy? Our chances for decent PC parts prices? Grumble grumble.

Google killed its own search to promote its AI "search".

Not the same. With AI, you give away all artistic control and become the client. If I pay somebody to make me an image, I'm not an artist, no matter how well I describe the content (ok maybe if description is too good, maybe I'd be an author). It's turning from a creator to a consumer.

FWIW it's not double the effort - game engines share similarities. Also, if Fortnite money dries up (and it is reducing), the "ever-changing" nature of our tech fields might hit UE as hard as it has been hitting Unity.

Did you even read even the summary? I know we're on Slashdot though, so ... fair enough. It's not about hand-coding websites, it's about the *content*. Imagine that somebody wants to share something with the world via the internet. Now, this sharing is at 66% efficiency, with the added bonus that the content will be stolen, rehashed and added to the already crowded competition for user attention. It's a bit grim, imo.

Your anecdote vs my anecdote:

-Me: "what approach do games studios use for this software problem"

-AI: "Most use XYZ, they basically do this and that"

-Me: "Really? Not sure about that. Provide me your sources please"

-AI: "Well, there's no exact source that says XYZ, but most do say QWE"

-Me: "Really? Show me some sources please"

-AI: "Of course! Here they are". Proceeds to show some links that talk about something which is not QWE...

Not anywhere near. At least H1-B replacements are human. With needs, maybe families, etc. As sad as it is for you, it would be an opportunity for a better life for them. Not comparable to spinning another instance of a lifeless algorithm, which provides Altman et al a tiny teeny bit more pocket change.