Live data from Hacker News

Who Does What? Team Topologies for the Agentic Platform

blog.owulveryck.info

31–40 of 41 posts

Re: Who Does What? Team Topologies for the Agentic Platform

#31

"Building an application used to mean orchestrating roles over time: one person designed, another challenged the architecture, a third tested, a fourth deployed." What? That's not my experience at all, this lost me very quickly.

It reveals the exact type of mindset that could produce an article like this. All they know is waterfall, so they see agentic coding and think: "you know what we need? More waterfall"

Re: Who Does What? Team Topologies for the Agentic Platform

#32
post #10

The 'reading effort : meaning' ratio of this post is a bit painful. There are about 3 named concepts in every paragraph. There are about 15 claims about named concept being the solution to a problem that's never explained. At some point, if you try to make 20 different points, you make no point at all.

It's got all the indicators of being AI generated, so really not surprising at all. I lost track of how many "this, not that" and "this, but also" within a few paragraphs. LLMs tend to prefer sounding clever over simple terminology.

Same - I can sense the value here and I can see how I can transfer some of the ideas to my team (based on the image), but the volume of text diarrhea made me realise "this person took the lazy way out and didn't create something for their audience". I stopped reading at second paragraph.

What I mean to say is that AI ghost writing is fine (I see the comment by the author). Deciding not to read poorly written content is also fine (and there's a reason why writing style has been discussed as long as the printed page has existed).

With the speed at which HN readers can identify mass produced, AI-generated word salad, it is insightful to look at a what users aren't able to stand back from their outputs and view them from the intended audience perspective

Re: Who Does What? Team Topologies for the Agentic Platform

#33
post #10

The 'reading effort : meaning' ratio of this post is a bit painful. There are about 3 named concepts in every paragraph. There are about 15 claims about named concept being the solution to a problem that's never explained. At some point, if you try to make 20 different points, you make no point at all.

Thank you for the feedback. I actually use AI as a ghost writer, but I am guilty: I usually tend to add too many concepts for a single article (even without AI). I usually follow Divio’s documentation to reference explanations and references, but it is not suitable for a blog post

And for the love of reading, please do not bold stuff all the time. It's the single worst thing for reading attention. I can't help but jump from bolded text to bolded text and in the end I'm not reading anything.

Re: Who Does What? Team Topologies for the Agentic Platform

#34

Please fix your writing and make it more user friendly to the users you want to read it. As of now, it reads like unedited AI slop.

I actually think it is people who write using these terrible short punchline sentences. In my experience, llms do better job at generating complicated sentences.

Re: Who Does What? Team Topologies for the Agentic Platform

#35
post #10

The 'reading effort : meaning' ratio of this post is a bit painful. There are about 3 named concepts in every paragraph. There are about 15 claims about named concept being the solution to a problem that's never explained. At some point, if you try to make 20 different points, you make no point at all.

It's got all the indicators of being AI generated, so really not surprising at all. I lost track of how many "this, not that" and "this, but also" within a few paragraphs. LLMs tend to prefer sounding clever over simple terminology.

Absolutely

Re: Who Does What? Team Topologies for the Agentic Platform

#36
post #10

The 'reading effort : meaning' ratio of this post is a bit painful. There are about 3 named concepts in every paragraph. There are about 15 claims about named concept being the solution to a problem that's never explained. At some point, if you try to make 20 different points, you make no point at all.

Thank you for the feedback. I actually use AI as a ghost writer, but I am guilty: I usually tend to add too many concepts for a single article (even without AI). I usually follow Divio’s documentation to reference explanations and references, but it is not suitable for a blog post

The author is advised go avoid falling for AI Loopidity. It's more valuable to just share the bullet points someone feeds a prompt to produce a blogpost than to wade through AI slop of a blog post that people have to use AI to summarize.

Re: Who Does What? Team Topologies for the Agentic Platform

#37
post #10

The 'reading effort : meaning' ratio of this post is a bit painful. There are about 3 named concepts in every paragraph. There are about 15 claims about named concept being the solution to a problem that's never explained. At some point, if you try to make 20 different points, you make no point at all.

It refers to Team Topologies, which is mostly that. Management literature fluff with little substance, but many claims.

Which then gives you great insights like

"a team can only be effective if it carries no more complexity than it can absorb."

Re: Who Does What? Team Topologies for the Agentic Platform

#38
post #10

The 'reading effort : meaning' ratio of this post is a bit painful. There are about 3 named concepts in every paragraph. There are about 15 claims about named concept being the solution to a problem that's never explained. At some point, if you try to make 20 different points, you make no point at all.

My co-worker and I call AI output like this “an overexertion of words:” the excessive jargon or concept-packing AI tends to do. “Overexertion” here being a collective noun like “a kaleidoscope of butterflies” or “a murder of crows.”

Re: Who Does What? Team Topologies for the Agentic Platform

#39
post #10

The 'reading effort : meaning' ratio of this post is a bit painful. There are about 3 named concepts in every paragraph. There are about 15 claims about named concept being the solution to a problem that's never explained. At some point, if you try to make 20 different points, you make no point at all.

It's got all the indicators of being AI generated, so really not surprising at all. I lost track of how many "this, not that" and "this, but also" within a few paragraphs. LLMs tend to prefer sounding clever over simple terminology.

no, you're misinterpreting what its doing. It's not...

Yes, what it's doing is using continuation phrases. It wants to continue, and these token-combos, like Tekken 4, let it move from one gradient descent to the next, and like Tony Hawk, perform combo after combo, so it can just keep producing tokens.

Because thats how they're trained. In another thread, someone wished they'd taught the models "I dont know" and were extremely convinced that some how you could train a model to stop producing tokens, or whatever. You can't both train the model to generate output and also teach it not to. That's their whole bag of tricks.

But it's not trying to be clever, it's trying to keep generating.

Re: Who Does What? Team Topologies for the Agentic Platform

#40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for the feedback. I actually use AI as a ghost writer, but I am guilty: I usually tend to add too many concepts for a single article (even without AI). I usually follow Divio’s documentation to reference explanations and references, but it is not suitable for a blog post

And for the love of reading, please do not bold stuff all the time. It's the single worst thing for reading attention. I can't help but jump from bolded text to bolded text and in the end I'm not reading anything.

This is an interesting feedback. I do that a lot to guide the reader’s system 1. I like reading article that have those emphasis. Maybe this is too much. I will investigate what are the good proportions.
Post reply on HN