Converge towards what though... I think the level of testing/verification you need to have an LLM output a non-trivial feature (e.g. Paxos/anything with concurrency, business logic that isn't just "fetch value from spreadsheet, add to another number and save to the database") is pretty high.

> it's a waste of time to steer them

It's not a waste of time, it's a responsibility. All things need steering, even humans -- there's only so much precision that can be extrapolated from prompts, and as the tasks get bigger, small deviations can turn into very large mistakes.

There's a balance to strike between micro-management and no steering at all.

Maybe some day, but as a claude code user it makes enough pretty serious screw ups, even with a very clearly defined plan, that I review everything it produces.

You might be able to get away without the review step for a bit, but eventually (and not long) you will be bitten.

Does the AI agent know what your company is doing right now, what every coworker is working on, how they are doing it, and how your boss will change priorities next month without being told?

If it really knows better, then fire everyone and let the agent take charge. lol

> given the proper framing

This sounds like never. Most businesses are still shuffling paper and couldn’t give you the requirements for a CRUD app if their lives depended on it.

You’re right, in theory, but it’s like saying you could predict the future if you could just model the universe in perfect detail. But it’s not possible, even in theory.

If you can fully describe what you need to the degree ambiguity is removed, you’ve already built the thing.

If you can’t fully describe the thing, like some general “make more profit” or “lower costs”, you’re in paper clip maximizer territory.