The thing is it gets you the wrong answer so fast it’s now the best way to figure out the right requirements.
And if I break up an application then 9 coders with Claude Code can build that application in an unprecedentedly short period.
Anything grindy. Reverse engineering. Performance optimizations.
That's where swarms shine I think. But that's a much much much smaller problem space than what these agents are being sold for.
Very weird way to say this. Like it holds true for biological beings because pregnancy by default has a fixed timeline. But how does this apply to AI? Also what even is an "agent"? Are they distinct worker units on a program or the same worker unit split into multiple instances?
Why are we assuming agent = man when its a computer program?
It would be something like "nine women cannot deliver a baby in one month", which can be more easily transposed to "adding resources to a SW project does not make it faster".
The agrument is that adding people increase coordination and communication overhead, which gets bigger as the team grows. Moreover, some tasks cannot be parallelized that easily and create dependencies.
I have only worked with agents for personal projects, but I cannot say that explicity dividing the work between multiple agents and asking them to coordinate is inherently faster than having a single agent work on it (of course the single agent will spawn subagents in rencent harnesses.)
Is this sustainable? I've got no idea.
That doesn't work if the driver cannot steer properly. It's the main issue with vibe-coded one-shotted solutions, that might look impressive until you peek underneath and it's all a mess.