Besides what the article brings up, such AI adoption feels like an artificial move. And from what I can observe, any artificial changes come crashing down at some point, damaging everything that grew dependent on it, and what remains of it is but a fraction of what it once was, and very unlikely to increase much again.
this post was submitted on 03 Dec 2025
10 points (100.0% liked)
Hacker News
3113 readers
476 users here now
Posts from the RSS Feed of HackerNews.
The feed sometimes contains ads and posts that have been removed by the mod team at HN.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
"Enterprises might discover that production agent deployments are harder than demos suggest. Hallucinations in high-stakes workflows, regulatory concerns around autonomous AI systems, or implementation complexity could slow adoption dramatically. If the agent future takes 5-7 years instead of 2-3, there's a painful gap where billions in infrastructure sits waiting for demand to catch up."
Yes. AI agents in infrastructure are a fundamentally stupid idea, at their very core.
Learn to write a bash script or pay someone competent to do it.
Almost no one needs a shittier solution that is 1000x faster to implement while 100x more likely to make profit-margin-evaporating mistakes.
Even the idiots calling the shots today are bound to notice this.
There's a third category of adoption to consider: "between 7 years and - let's not fucking do this, it is stupid"