rajvarkala

Not sure I follow. But, the first paragraph is interesting.

You are saying, employees stick around if they are given easy tickets, and companies care about passing along easy tickets so warm bodies do not churn.

That will be a big claim.

If the AI is never going to be manageable, never trustable, then the whole idea of agentic systems is dumb.

What is the point of an agent running and you don't trust it?

That would be equivalent to calling this whole AI wave useless. May be it is, maybe it is not.

Indeed. The whole AI game is predicated on the fact that they can deliver work equivalent to humans in some cases. If that is never going to be the case, then this whole agentic stuff goes belly-up.

The alternative scenario is they get better and do some work really well. That is an interesting territory to focus on.

How do you verify AWS charges? By inspecting logs? There goes the arbiter.

I get the binary part. The biggest difference is the subjective component of outcome? However, a tech provider - especially Agent provider - has to bring down the subjective to a quantitative metric when selling. If that cannot be done, I am not sure what we are going to be buying from Agent builders/providers?

:)

One reason slack exists is because of capacity and utilization, less slack -> higher wait times in peak times.

Is slack intended for Employee welfare? Come on, we are talking corporate here.

The support services are already regimented - L1, L2 etc. I am not a fan of AI either, but it may be a new reality.

We just give today's human performance metrics to AI agents.

AI agent developers internally have a metric they are targeting to improve. That itself violates goodhart law.

Interesting. Let's take the case of infra spend on AWS. Amazon says you invoked serverless calls 100k times and you are charged for it. How are you trusting them?

Understood. So, a better way is to keep him on a retainer? Or let Amazon or Cheaper store do a cost-plus model?

I think that is the core of the argument. It is the risk-sharing between buyer and seller. If sold on outcomes, seller carries all risk. If sold on work-put-in, buyer carries all risk.

Add to that, in some scenarios, outcomes themselves are fuzzy.

The price will be what you are willing to pay. No justification required, excepting for fairness (info asymmetry and what else?). It is written by me. Unfunded bootstrapped !!call it dire straits.

The agent builder loses contract .. Is this not force enough to make AI worthwhile?

:)

Of course, there is displacement. Jobs evolve.

Yes. Always exists. There neesd to be a secondary mechanism to verify .

But, again, such systems already exist. The folk theorem guarantees this. In a repeated game, people crave reputation.

For instance, seller over-resolving will suffer in the long run, I guess.

This is actually what I thought. Although, AI agent developers can capture 1:10 of value delivered - assuming AI agents deliver - but with competiton among Agent builders, the value capture will go down. That is one possibility