Stuffing agents somewhere they don't belong rather than making the system work better with the agents people already use. Obvious marketing driven cash grab.
GitHub Agentic Workflows
31–40 of 149 posts
Re: GitHub Agentic Workflows
#32There's a lot of hate in this thread, but there are plenty of engineers chomping at the bit for autonomous workflows, because browser-use isn't there yet, and cloud expenses from major providers are also unappealing with so much relatively powerful local compute.
Re: GitHub Agentic Workflows
#33since generation is not deterministic, how do they verify the lock file?
Re: GitHub Agentic Workflows
#34Somehow i want to ask what's the actual job of those former software engineers. Agents everywhere, on your local machine, in the pipeline, on the servers, and they are doing everything. Yes, the specs also.
Re: GitHub Agentic Workflows
#35Somehow i want to ask what's the actual job of those former software engineers. Agents everywhere, on your local machine, in the pipeline, on the servers, and they are doing everything. Yes, the specs also.
Someone still has orchestrate the shit show. Like a captain at the helm in the middle of a storm.
Or you can be full accelerationist and give an agent the role of standing up all the agents. But then you need someone with the job of being angry when they get a $7000 cloud bill.
Re: GitHub Agentic Workflows
#36Github should focus on getting their core offerings in shape first.
I stopped using GH actions when I ran into this issue: https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/151956#discuss...
That was almost a year ago and to this date I still get updates of people falling into the same issue.
Re: GitHub Agentic Workflows
#37Somehow i want to ask what's the actual job of those former software engineers. Agents everywhere, on your local machine, in the pipeline, on the servers, and they are doing everything. Yes, the specs also.
What is the job of a truck driver, if it's the truck that delivers goods?
Re: GitHub Agentic Workflows
#38Github should focus on getting their core offerings in shape first. I stopped using GH actions when I ran into this issue: https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/151956#discuss... That was almost a year ago and to this date I still get updates of people falling into the same issue.
This reminds me slightly of some copilot nonsense I get. I don’t use copilot. Every few days when I’m on the GitHub homepage the copilot chat input (which I don’t want on my homepage anyway) tells me it’s disabled because I’ve used up my monthly limit of copilot.
I literally do not use it, and no my account isn’t compromised. Trying to trick people into paying? Seems cartoonishly stupid but…
Re: GitHub Agentic Workflows
#39Github should focus on getting their core offerings in shape first. I stopped using GH actions when I ran into this issue: https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/151956#discuss... That was almost a year ago and to this date I still get updates of people falling into the same issue.
Well, this behavior makes sense. They're a bluechip trying to maintain the illusion that theyre a growth stock juuuust a little bit longer.
Re: GitHub Agentic Workflows
#40I find this confusing: I can see the value in having an LLM assist you in developing a CI/CD workflow, but why would you want one involved in any continuous degree with your CI/CD? Perhaps it’s not as bad as that given that there’s a “compilation” phase, but the value add there isn’t super clear either (why would I check in both the markdown and the generated workflow; should I always regenerate from the markdown whe…
> but why would you want one involved in any continuous degree with your CI/CD
because helping you isn't the goal
the goal is to generate revenue by consuming tokens
and a never ending swarm of "AI" "agents" is a fantastic way to do that