OpenClaw is not going to be a thing in 6 months. The core idea might exist but that codebase is built on a house of cards and is being replicated in 10% of the code.

I don’t think anyone is arguing against code agents being good at prototypes, which is a great feat, but most SWE work is built on maintaining code over time.

Right, but what about real companies that solve real people's problems? I think LLMs make a difference for sure, but I haven't yet seen a company that blew past its competitors because of how great their AI usage was. A really great example would be an underdog smallish company that did so in a non-AI field.

It’s very much not beside the point. Productivity is measured in how much value you get out from the hours your workers put in.

But that only gets you to a philosophical argument about what "value" is. Many would argue that being able to get your thing into a Super Bowl commercial is extremely valuable. I definitely have never built anything that did.

It's very much imperfect, but the only consistently agreed upon and useful definition of "value" we have in the West is monetary value, and in that sense, we have at least a few major examples of AI generating value rapidly.

OK but that also means VR was a success, and web 3, and NFTs.

Well, yes, these were definitely a success for some. And I personally still believe that VR will be a success in the longer-term.

In any case, I agree with the grandparent post about the distinction between being successful and good.