7 comments

  • ivolimmen59 minutes ago
    &gt; Organizations are using agentic coding tools to build software in-house in lieu of purchasing it. Nearly a third of respondents (32 percent) report that their organizations have decided against buying one or more software products or features because they could be built internally with agentic coding tools.<p>People think they can do it themself... kind of like how everyone build their own database using Microsoft Access in the 90&#x27;s. When all software developers needed to repair all the issues...
    • __MatrixMan__0 minutes ago
      We can do it ourselves. Simple custom tools are so much more effective than a conglomeration of general purpose ones. I&#x27;ve been ripping out SaaS offerings left and right, it&#x27;s great.
    • PaulRobinson44 minutes ago
      I am at a point in my career where I&#x27;m figuring out where I want to spend the last 15 years of it. I don&#x27;t want to work in corporate for a long stretch of it. It seems to me, being a consultant to fix all those messes could be a good seam of code face to get stuck into...
      • rwmj37 minutes ago
        It&#x27;s going to be a horrible job though, the equivalent of fixing Y2K bugs in Cobol code except with code bases that even more vast and unintelligible.
        • jeffreyrogers23 minutes ago
          The LLMs are pretty good at helping with that though.
          • sph8 minutes ago
            I want to believe this is witty sarcasm, given the topic, but you never know these days.
            • jeffreyrogers0 minutes ago
              No, it&#x27;s been my experience asking LLMs to explain complicated code to me. They can do a pretty good job of it. You can also ask them to write a bunch of tests and then rip out the old implementation and fix it with a new one. LLMs aren&#x27;t perfect but they are really good at understanding and writing code.
        • sph10 minutes ago
          Yeah, unreasonable deadlines (these are the norm) spent trying to untangle a mass of overly verbose spaghetti code, and chances are there is no budget for you to do it properly, they contracted you only for a ‘bugfix’. It’s just more technical debt on top of technical debt.<p>No, thank you. I’ll leave the underpaid disinfestation job to someone else.<p>The best fun is when you’ll be called in not to untangle the LLM mess, but to build new features on top of its nonsense architecture and API design, but expected to do it by hand because they have lost confidence in AI.
        • karmakurtisaani19 minutes ago
          It will be messes of python scripts running on some ancient version of python that you have to switch between scripts. All in a folder on some laptop with an outdated OS that you cannot update or everything will break. Business logic obviously not documented anywhere, just mountains and mountains of slop readmes that might be accurate, but also might not be.
    • codingdave15 minutes ago
      Except that isn&#x27;t how it played out. Most of the Access DBs, spreadsheets, and even SharePoint, Notes, and early Salesforce apps worked just fine without any help from devs. Yes, the devs got called in when those solutions needed to scale beyond a single department, but most of them never did.<p>It is far more plausible that we&#x27;ll see that pattern again - small, department-level vibe coded apps will be around. And things that need to scale bigger will need professionals.
  • mjhay1 hour ago
    The ROÍ will be happening any day now, we promise. Please hire more McKinsey consultants who say they’re AI experts.
    • walt_grata59 minutes ago
      Is there a company that has been more damaging to the software industry than these jokers?
      • dgellow45 minutes ago
        Oracle maybe?
      • inigyou58 minutes ago
        Apple?
        • piva0053 minutes ago
          The one who invested in LLVM?
          • inigyou34 minutes ago
            The one who normalised needing approval from the device maker to run code.
        • MeetingsBrowser31 minutes ago
          How so?
        • sublinear50 minutes ago
          I&#x27;m about as much of an Apple hater as anyone else, but you&#x27;re probably thinking of user interface design (or CUPS).
  • zerolayers22 minutes ago
    This McKinsey? <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.justice.gov&#x2F;archives&#x2F;opa&#x2F;pr&#x2F;justice-department-announces-resolution-criminal-and-civil-investigations-mckinsey-companys" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.justice.gov&#x2F;archives&#x2F;opa&#x2F;pr&#x2F;justice-department-a...</a>
  • dgellow42 minutes ago
    Do I understand correctly that means there is no AI ROI to show off yet? If correct that’s pretty bad, no?
    • 23918-1625413 minutes ago
      <i>Directionally</i>, we&#x27;ll have ROI by 2100 if we build 1000x more data centers. Growth mindset!
    • an0malous41 minutes ago
      There’s a concept of an ROI
    • Kassam_L25 minutes ago
      For the internet in many cases it took a decade or longer too, no? <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Productivity_paradox" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Productivity_paradox</a>
    • rozal31 minutes ago
      [dead]
  • lukewarm70748 minutes ago
    i look forward to mckinsey being replaced by ai.
    • antisthenes20 minutes ago
      No need, you can replace them with a single sentence.<p>Do the most unethical profit-maximizing thing, but also account for the eventual lawsuits and loss of goodwill in your calculation.
  • kittikitti8 minutes ago
    I wouldn&#x27;t trust anything McKinsey publishes.
  • simianwords28 minutes ago
    As expected the thread is filled with smug comments on how it is definitely not ROI positive.<p>The thing I think about is AI is already at that spot where you don’t need a survey or a Randomised Controlled Trial to prove it makes one productive. Sometimes things are that obvious. But these kind of tests and surveys appeal to a certain kind of person who considers IMO the wrong type of things as rigorous.
    • jeffreyrogers19 minutes ago
      It makes organizations more productive at producing code and doing other tasks, but translating that into something that affects PnL is different. Where I work it&#x27;s sped up individual tasks I&#x27;ve worked on but I don&#x27;t think it&#x27;s sped up delivery timelines of any of the major projects I&#x27;m involved in. We just added additional verification work with the extra cycles the engineers have now. It&#x27;s not like that work is useless. It will probably mean I have less debugging to do in the future, but when you look at how the business makes money I don&#x27;t see it making a big impact.
      • simianwords16 minutes ago
        Based on what you said, would you think firms would dial down AI use in the coming years? If not it stands to reason that it did have big impact.
        • jeffreyrogers2 minutes ago
          I think it is easy for companies to waste time and money on lots of things when it is hard to measure the impact. For example, I think most people would agree that the big tech companies are bloated and have too many employees for the amount of work they have. There&#x27;s not really an incentive to fix problems, and in some cases (like with headcount) there are counter-incentives (managers want to have more reports).<p>I think companies will get better at measuring the impact of AI and attributing it to increasing profit or decreasing costs, and that the companies that are better at this will have an advantage over those that are worse, so eventually overall efficiency will improve.