AI coding is the first really large market for AI.
When do we say, this is all agents?
We just, at the end of the value chain, we're like, does this work or not work?
Click yes or no.
Agents, more than ever, need an environment to run these things.
Context engineering for both humans and agents.
Every single part of it is getting disrupted.
It's not that there's just somebody writing code like your classical developers being disrupted, but everybody along the value chain.
And when founders should build next.
Hope you enjoy.
So, Jörg, we just launched this, I think, amazing new dev stack for the AI coding environment.
And I'm really, really excited about this.
Yeah.
I mean, and let me start with a very high order pitch why I think this is so incredibly exciting.
I think AI coding is the first really large market for AI, right?
I mean, we've seen there's a ton of investment that has flown in.
The question now, to some degree, is where's the value, right?
Why are we doing all this?
AI coding can create an incredible amount of value.
If you think about this, we have about 30 million developers worldwide, roughly, right?
Let's say each of them generates $100,000 in value.
In the United States it may be low because many of them get paid a lot more, but internationally it might be a little high, but I think in order of magnitude it holds.
So in aggregate, the value we're creating here is about 30 million times 100,000.
So $3 trillion.
I will argue even more because that's just developers.
But then there's also people who are development curious.
They were not developers.
Maybe they're, I mean, design engineering now is a big thing.
Every designer should just, you know, write code.
Dark riders.
Exactly.
But if you just take the $3 trillion figure, that's about the GDP of France.
So the claim we're making here, as crazy as it sounds, is that we're saying The entire population of the seventh or eighth, I think, largest economy on the planet generates about as much value as a couple of startups that are reshaping the AI software development ecosystem, plus the LLMs underneath.
Yeah.
And everything we see and touch and use nowadays are all software.
That's right.
Yeah.
So software has disrupted everything in the world.
And now software itself is getting massively disrupted.
Totally.
And then what you mentioned in the blog post is really interesting just because we now are more capable at using LLM to generate code and coding and produce software.
But then as a result, it's not like there's less jobs.
It's actually more and more software is being produced before.
Maybe it's a SaaS service catering to hundreds of people's needs, to thousands of people's needs.
Now you can really just vibe code things software for one.
Yeah.
Yeah, I vibe code.
I do that, yeah.
Exactly, you do that, exactly.
And then I vibe code my own email filter.
You know I don't do so much of using LLM to reply to my email, but I have a filter where I categorize the labels, things like that.
Only to some emails.
Only to some emails.
So the first question becomes like, How do you think the development loop is shifting?
I think the answer is complex.
And very frankly, it's so early, I think, in this AI revolution, we don't have the full answer yet.
Right.
But I mean, we have our little stack, our little software development lifecycle.
Post AI in the blog post.
And I think...
The biggest learning from that is probably that every single part of it is getting disrupted.
It's not that there's just somebody writing code like your classical developers being disrupted, but everybody along the value chain is getting disrupted.
What's the most surprising part for you?
What's the most disrupted field today in coding?
And what do you think AI will come after next?
So I think well, we've seen the biggest growth, I think it's safe to say, in the classic sort of coding IDE, integrated coding assistance or more agentic coding assistance, right.
The cursors and devins and GitHub co-pilots and cloud codes of the world, right?
I think that's where we see the most traction, where we see an incredible revenue growth.
I mean, I want to say that segment possibly has the fastest revenue growth of any startup sector we've seen in the history of startups, which is again, an incredible statement.
So I think this is currently the vanguard, right?
And everybody's aware of it.
We're seeing billion-dollar, you know, acquihires or takeover offers.
So that's an incredibly vibrant sector.
Now, which one is next?
That's a really good question.
So to be very specific, in the blog, we wrote about the basic loop.
The basics is you plan, you code, you review.
Where does LM come in and where do you think more of the loop will be disrupted?
Do you think the loop will still be the same as what we used to have, the basic?
Or do you think it will look very different?
I think at this point, it's very hard to speculate about the end state.
Let's assume you've seen the first email.
I'll get there.
But if you look at the first email sent over the internet right, you can sort of predict that probably we'll have websites and these things.
Maybe if you're good, you can, right?
But you know it's saying like hey, the net effect of this is that everybody can rent out their house and compete with hotels.
And this is going to be the biggest hotel company on the planet.
You'd be like, well, that's a little far-fetched.
But now we have Airbnb, right?
So these secondary effects, I think, are really hard to guess.
My current hypothesis is I think we'll still have software developers.
I think they're not going anywhere.
Yeah.
Right.
I think what they do will look completely different.
Right.
Right.
Yeah.
I think the CS education frankly any CS class taught today at any major university is probably best seen as this historical relic from a bygone time.
Right.
I mean, if you look at the best of breed startups, what they're doing.
The loop that the developer is in looks so different from what you did before, right?
You have multiple agents that you're prompting, that you're telling things you know you can pull that back into UI.
You're trying to understand what they did.
You're trying to put them back on the rails.
It's a lot more thinking at a higher level.
I mean all of coding sort of has been high levels of distractions, but I think we're making a huge leap here.
So how it's going to look like, I have no idea.
My gut feeling is we'll probably have more developers.
Look, this basic...
Plan execute cycle.
It's probably going to be some flavor of that's still around is my guess.
But what do you think?
So one of my top questions is that would this be a step-by-step loop or would this meshed into just one step?
So one example is if my agent is writing a code, do I still need to review it or do I have another agent that just reviews it?
If it's the same agent, like implementation detail is one thing.
You can separate out the agent generating code from the agent reviewing code.
But then if it's all agent, both generating and reviewing code, is it just the same step?
Do we actually disaggregate the step-by-step process and have human in the loop?
Whereas if as a human, I write code and I want agent to review code, that makes sense to me.
So I do wonder when do we pull out something, as this is an individual tool and individual stuff an agent takes care of.
And when do we say this is our agents?
We just at the end of the value chain, we're like, does this work or not work?
Click yes or no.
I think the time periods of which an agent can work autonomously will get longer.
Still, if somebody says look, I want to write a complete ERP system for my multinational enterprise goal, there's no way I could imagine that it'll just run and back come software that actually fits the requirements.
And in part, I think it's a problem that models are still very, very far away from being able to run autonomously for that long.
But the other problem is, let's assume this was an all-human team.
We wouldn't understand all the challenges yet at the beginning, right?
We'd have to revisit the design.
We'd have to revisit the architecture that has cost implications and so on.
So at some point you sort of need to go back to the architects and the product managers and say hey, we had a plan A didn't quite work, or we have found new challenges.
So here's our updated plan A. Is that the, you know, or plan B, right?
Is this what you want to do?
So I think the loop will still be there.
The timescales will probably change, but...
Yeah, it's very, very hard to guess right now.
Yeah.
Another thing we start to see more often is, contrary to how much humans need to come and intervene the loop, we actually start to give agents tools for them to know what they have to do.
One example is this loop I see so often, like the agent wants to implement say, clerk auth in their app.
Now they need to go to Mitlify and Contact7 to say what is the latest version of Clerk and how can I implement it correctly and in what file.
I'm not going to copy-paste it to cursor or give it to the agent, because I'm too lazy as a human now.
The agent should be able to call the API themselves to put stuff in the context to make it work.
This is just one example of what behavior change we're seeing.
Because before, as developers, we're so used to go back to the docs and refer to the docs and tell the agent what to do.
Now agents can obviously just... We cut off the middleman.
Right, we cut off the middleman.
I don't need to route all these requests for the agents anymore.
I think there's other examples, which is verification.
As a human, before I write code or review other people's code, I pull out the code.
And then the first thing I do is actually not to review because I don't like reading code.
I'm not a human compiler.
The first thing I do is to fork the change and see if it still works.
If it doesn't work, I just do not review it.
Nowadays there are opportunities to give just agents a native environment to first see does this work?
Does the UI still look good?
Do all the requests still check out?
Did it break my build?
Before the human needs to come in and review.
Maybe that manifests itself in part of the local development process.
Maybe it manifests itself in the PR review process.
But in any case, now agents more than ever need an environment to run these things.
When I used to write something just for myself like a little script I need somewhere.
In the past I usually didn't include unit tests.
For production code, it's different.
But for just personal things, it's like, yeah, it's a single developer.
I know what I'm doing here.
With agents, I now start including unit tests because they're so much easier to write.
And they allow an agent, as you said, to understand if the changes that they did broke anything else.
And they may not have the context how this originally was built anymore in an easily digestible form.
So that's super valuable.
On a grand scheme of like how much economic value this generates?
Where in the value chain do you think it's growing the fastest?
Like you see where the agents is producing so much more value than other areas.
But what are the areas you feel like would be the next takeoff?
So look, I'm talking about a hundred or so enterprises about this per year.
Just when we, you know, take our portfolio companies to them as potential customers.
What I'm hearing from them is that the number one use case in terms of ROI right now is legacy code porting.
It's not super surprising.
One of the first papers in the space from Google.
They wrote a fantastic paper where they detailed on just doing very mundane things like replacing a Java library across a very large code base.
Not like millions of lines of code, so it's a very large code base.
What do you consider as legacy stack?
What do you consider as new stack?
It totally depends on you.
But I mean, for the banks, it's often COBOL or FORTRAN to Java.
Oh, COBOL.
I haven't heard that word for a long time.
You know, I actually wrote COBOL code once in the 90s.
It probably dates me at this point.
Actually, how are LLMs with COBOL?
They're apparently extremely good.
That's a surprise.
So here's the thing, right?
One of the hardest thing if you implement code with LLMs is just getting the specification precise right.
If I can specify something very precisely, then usually the LL can do a good job at implementing it.
So many of these companies do is they take legacy code, they have an LLM, write a specification that fits the legacy code and then they say re-implement the specification and you may look at the code as a tiebreaker if something is not clear.
And that seems to work incredibly well.
So I'm hearing that today.
I heard from several sources now that you can get about a 2x speedup versus traditional processes for that right.
And that's amazing, right?
And what this has led to is that actually, of those enterprises that I've talked to, the majority says they're currently accelerating.
At least the majority of those that are sophisticated about this.
They're saying they're accelerating their developer hiring.
We don't know if this is a long-term trend, but right now they're basically saying look, because we found so many low-hanging fruit type projects where, with a little bit upfront investment, we can then save infrastructure costs.
And that's super exciting.
So I'm you know what this will mean for the.
You know how much longer is the mainframe business going to be around?
Or you know, I don't know, but there's definitely a shift there where suddenly legacy code migration is much, much easier than it was before.
You know, I think that'll change a lot of the dynamics in the sort of classic enterprise software space.
That's interesting.
I do wonder if we will get new mainframe code.
Because before, no one knows how to program those things.
They could also be, yes.
And now you realize you can program mainframe using natural language.
Yeah, totally.
So another possibility is that we get renaissance of the underlying legacy coding languages.
It's crazy to me how versatile these coding assistants are, right?
I mean we're seeing them write CUDA kernels, which is like that is difficult stuff to write by any metric.
I've tried them with a language which basically has no usable training data set and they're still able to solve abstract problems.
Know the, with a couple of examples, um you know, of how the code will have to look like.
It's not perfect, but so i think it's.
It's a very, very broad technology for sure recently.
It's just like what we were talking about before, um code reviews because, like to your point um, lms are so good at coding and generating code sometimes it's beyond our our comprehension will take more time to review the code than the coding agents like there's.
That's not a controversial opinion, just like how it is.
That's the reality.
Yeah.
So it does make me wonder how our development chain and steps are going to evolve from here.
How are we going to do PRs when we can't possibly review thousands of lines of code as humans?
So does that mean the right abstraction now is still code, or does it mean the right abstraction now is for us to review plans?
If that's the case, is GitHub review still the right abstraction for that?
I think there's still a role for review in general.
I think the question is, will humans do the review?
Like right now, most of the code that LLM generates.
Unless you're deep in vibe coding territory, you're just like oh, this is a one-off.
I'm just going to try something out.
Maybe then you don't review it.
You just hit accept and hope for the best.
But anything else, I still review the code line by line.
That said, we're starting to see really good tools that plug into your backend system, your GitHub.
Whenever a pull request comes in, they analyze it, they comment on it, they point out security vulnerabilities, they point out that the spec is different from the implementation.
They point out that this creates dependencies, which may not be desired.
They enforce coding guidelines, which is very, very powerful.
I haven't met anybody yet...
Tell me if you have, but I haven't met anybody yet who basically has said we're going to rely purely on AI to review code.
Right?
Anything can go in if the AI checks off on it.
But I have seen, for example, companies that are saying before we had two developers review code and now it's one developer.
Or cases where basically just the AI hangs out in the GitHub discussion and comments on things.
So you can basically delegate tasks.
It's like, can you look at this?
Are we using this library somewhere else?
So basically you can have somebody who can help with these tasks.
Yeah.
My hot take on this is actually if PR is supposed to give us a context as developers, what did these other coding agents or my colleagues, you know change that I should be aware of?
I don't think code, reviewing code is the right abstraction.
Because it might be feature level, it might be performance level.
So now it might just become a one-liner.
This agent improved your CUDA implementation.
And maybe I don't even know CUDA, but I know the improvement when I can verify it.
So the question for me is do I still need to go to the PR review every line, or should I just be given you know two sentences to know how this works and the environment to test it out?
If it's the right two sentences, that works.
Yeah.
Will the LLM always pick the right two ones?
I don't know yet.
Yeah, that's true.
I mean, if you give an environment the question it's like, can you verify the environment?
Against the two sentences.
If the answer is yes, that would be easier to solve.
If the answer is no, you know, that's harder.
But I think there's a bigger picture here though, which is that LLMs are also very good in generating the documentation and description for the code, right.
So when I use something like Cursor for Coding, And, you know, it generates code.
I often ask it afterwards and now take the internal documentation and update it.
Because the internal documentation is important for me, but also for the coding agents, because they want to be able to refer to it.
You don't want every single time to take the entire code base and stick it into the context window.
It's massively inefficient and slow.
So if instead you can just say like read this document, that will explain to you the class hierarchy right.
And then based on that, implement this new subclass.
So it's much, much faster. fun to do.
I think there's a real opportunity there to get to much better documented code than previously.
Right.
That's true.
A compiler is great in that it takes a high level abstraction, translates it into a lower level one.
But now we have the ability that if somebody in hand optimizes the low level one, we can use that to update the higher level one.
That's true.
What is the new compiler in the age of AI?
LLMs are sort of a compiler, right?
In some way.
They take a high-level description and fill it down.
I guess what's missing is it doesn't natively have an environment.
Compiler gives you, does this work or does it compile or does it not compile?
It doesn't tell you does this work, which is a very subject thing.
I think it's right.
Like a compiler... enforces, is a strict enforcement of certain things, right?
You can, I can rely on that, I don't know, I'm using Rust and things will be typed, right?
So that's a huge step forward, right?
And I can exclude certain bugs.
With an LM, that's not the case, right?
Now, That said, you sort of wonder, is this just an initial thing?
Is this just a?
I mean LLMs over time like, for example, we can give LLMs tools that allow them to syntactically parse code right.
And then now suddenly they can start reasoning above code.
They can ask are we sure that the representation of object X is the same across these different modules, even if it gets serialized in between, or something like that?
I don't mean to make this episode desegregating GitHub, but GitHub is so central to so much of our workflow, right?
Everything goes through it, from the social aspect of discovering what other developers are doing to distributing the software you can download things to keeping track of what you have changed.
Git right.
Integration with the build system, the backend, yeah.
Yeah, so now another interesting thing we start to see is people use Git repos very differently now.
Before it was like oh, humans will make some changes, we'll commit it and then other people will see it.
And then we, you know, open the PR, people see different revisions.
Now agents are doing so many changes, it's kind of counterproductive to commit everything.
And then repos usually have very low rate limits because it's designed for humans to use.
So now the question becomes, what is the new repo abstraction?
That handles a distributed infrastructure, but also caters to high-frequency commits.
And sometimes when agents are doing these commits, they don't even want to preserve this forever.
It's more like an intermediate step, so that they can explore five different paths but then revert to any of them.
And then when they're happy with it, they commit back to GitHub.
So one thing I've been playing around with is there's this company called Relays and then their docs has this repos feature where you can give a repo to the agent.
The agent, will you know, commit stuff like very high frequency kind of works really well with byte coding agents.
And that has been such a great experience.
And in the wild, I start to see people building this internally too.
It makes total sense.
Look, if we completely change how humans write code or we're shifting from humans to delegating most of the writing to agents, I think it would be foolish to assume that the underlying services that were a good fit for the human world are still a good fit for this new agenda.
Yeah, for sure.
That's almost certainly not the case.
I think you're completely right.
For source code repositories, we want something that's much more real-time.
Honestly, I mean, imagine, let's take this to the limit, right?
Let's assume I have now just me personally running 100 agents in parallel that all try to implement features in my code base.
Yeah.
We probably need some kind of coordination mechanism between them.
They're all not trying to edit the same file.
Oh, for sure.
Yeah.
Rebase only carries you so far.
Right, yeah.
You just get too many collisions.
And they all need a shared memory on the repo they're working on.
That's right.
Because they don't want to reinstall the dependencies every time.
That's right, yeah, exactly.
And so, you know, you probably need something that's much, much more flexible and more real-time.
And, you know, we were still figuring out what that is.
What Relays is doing there is amazing.
And I think it's not just...
It's not just true for GitHub.
And GitHub is one of the big platforms we use.
But take the specification writing with say, a Confluence or Jira, for example, that you could use there.
If you would develop these systems bottoms up with AI in mind, they would probably look very, very different.
I mean, it's like you know should my story tracker have a function that looks at code and update stories accordingly?
Yeah, that would be very natural, right?
So I think we've seen this for documentation, right?
I mean something like Mintlify looks very, very different at the documentation problem than previous generations.
I think we're seeing it for testing, we're seeing it for PR reviews.
We're rethinking this entire stack, and that's exciting, right?
That's true.
Another behavior change we have seen, which is really interesting because humans, like developers, we're very lazy.
Yeah.
So if we don't have to read it, we do not read it.
We only read the relevant parts in documentation.
We only skim through things.
So the net new behavior we see all the time with documentation like hosted on Millify, is that users who are net new just go in and ask questions.
Yeah.
And agents do not just ingest it anymore.
They will actually just do a query against this context.
So context engineering for both humans, because our brains are like LLMs.
We need the context and agents who need context, which is a very critical part.
It's such a critical part of development from here point on.
And then the question becomes, what are the other... tools you think agents will need like we had this huge you know market map from the blog and then there's contrary to where you know all the previous market map suggests which is like here are the developer tools now there are agent tools to make it better yeah In some cases, the same tool caters to both, right?
I mean, that's immediate documentation for Asians and for humans.
So look, early days, but I think we're seeing a couple of big categories emerge, right?
I mean, sandboxes are helpful to try out, you know, code snippets or build things.
How do you define a sandbox?
I think we can record the whole episode on that.
And I think we will at some point.
But look, at the end of the day, you need an environment with certain safety guarantees, right?
Where LLMs, Hallucinate LLMs can be clever.
If they use external sources, they can potentially be maliciously prompted to do bad things, and you just want to have something that basically limits the blast radius if anything bad happens.
I think we're seeing interesting search tools and parsing tools like something like Sourcegraph or so right.
If I'm writing my code in a couple of files, we don't need that.
But if you have a really large code base, you know, and suddenly the question is look, we're looking for, we're trying to replace, we're trying to add a parameter to a function in a library that's widely used.
Where is this library used?
This is a really hard problem suddenly, right?
I mean, it's like, If you're in Python or so, you can import something as something else.
So a simple find operation will no longer find these things.
You probably need syntactic parsing to find those.
So I think we're seeing documentation tools that are optimized for agents and allow agents to look up these things.
I think it's good if an agent can do things like web search.
So we're seeing companies in that space.
What am I missing here?
There's so many more.
I think there's the other part of we're seeing more specialized models.
Yeah, I mean for things like code editing or, you know, re-ranking files and things like that.
Right, that's definitely shaping up as a market.
If you take a big step back, if we assume there's massive value creation here, that probably creates an opportunity to create a very large number of startups.
I mean, if you would have asked me 18 months back actually, if you would have asked me 24 months back, I would have said like look, DevTools.
It's a smallish kind of market.
How big can this be, right?
That's not very exciting.
If you ask me today, it suddenly looks like this is a market that could go in the hundreds of billions of dollars, right?
In theory, could it go to a trillion?
I don't know.
So how many companies can you create in that space?
I have no idea, but probably hundreds.
And over time, it'll consolidate, but I expect this to be an ecosystem, not a business model.
I have a fun question, which is going forward.
So when GitHub came out, they have this commit charts.
It's, it was on t-shirts.
You know like people compare the commit charts, people like commit specific messages.
So the commit charts look like, like has a good graphics.
What?
Because before commits are so tied to the value developers bring like, how many commits do you make?
How many lines of code do you change?
I mean, we all know it's not the best proxy for value.
Yes, not at all.
Right.
So what would be the next commit chart on GitHub?
What would that look like?
What's the next?
That's a great, that's an amazing question.
Maybe how many tokens you burn?
If you come to the office, look, I burned like 10 million tokens over the weekend.
But tokens burned could also be very ineffective prompting or context engineering.
Yeah, I just stuck my entire code base in the context window, maybe.
Is it the number of agents you use?
It's even more gameable.
What is the unit of value?
That's the closest approximation to what you've delivered as value as a developer.
Non-cached input tokens?
Might be too complicated.
I don't know.
Yeah.
I'm taking this to a higher level.
The metrics, how we evaluate software development are changing, right?
Where potentially a big complex refactoring isn't that much work anymore.
That's true.
Because I can let the LLM do this and it's structurally easy.
A specific optimization in a fairly obscure area where the LLM has no training data.
I may have to do by hand and it's vastly more valuable.
So, yeah, it's complicated.
Maybe it's number of apps vibe coded.
I think, something else which is there's on the market map agent toolboxes.
There's actually a box I want to double click on.
There's the agent orchestration.
You can now use not just one agent, but multiple agents, even different copies of the same agent, for them to parallelly do things.
Yeah.
What's the implication of this?
What can you do with multiple agents orchestrating them together that you couldn't do before?
I mean, we're all very ADHD developers.
I mean, I think there's a couple of things.
Work faster, obviously, right?
But you can also try out multiple approaches in parallel and see which one works best.
I've seen approaches where people, for example, they want to optimize a certain code and they fire off a couple of agents with slightly different approaches and then just measure which one works best.
I see.
And there's some startups proposing doing that in a more automated way even, right?
Where you would just... do this, you know, without human intervention.
You just say optimize this and then, you know, this gets kicked off in the background.
This all takes a crazy amount of tokens at the end, right?
So I mean, I think this is a really another really interesting trend where three months ago, I don't recall anybody talking about the cost of coding assistance.
Right, yeah.
I mean, three months ago, honestly, nothing, right?
You go to a Reddit forum on Cursor, so there was, you know, pretty much nothing posted there.
Today, that's one of the number one topics in those forums.
Maybe the number one topic, right?
Because I think we figured out how, with high powered reasoning models and very large context windows, we can have single tasks that suddenly cost dollars.
Not sure about tens of dollars, but at least, you know, dollars is very, very doable.
And that adds up, right?
It depends, you know, if you're a super high-end programmer, maybe it doesn't matter.
If anybody else, a couple of dollars an hour, you know, that's a substantial expense.
If you're in a low-cost location, it may end up costing more than what you're making.
It used to be That if I was writing software oversimplifying slightly, I had one expense, which is people.
Okay, they needed a laptop and some connectivity and an office.
But in the grand scheme of things, the cost that really mattered, at least in the more high-cost locations, was the compensation of the person.
That seems to have changed now.
We suddenly have infrastructure cost for a software engineer, right?
They need the constant feed of LLM tokens to keep them happy, otherwise they're not productive.
They'll probably change the industry somehow, right?
I'm not sure we understand how, right?
We know people will be building more, that's for sure.
That's right.
And the question becomes, does building more correlate with more tokens burned to some extent?
Right.
And I met so many great engineers who are burning, you know like they're the top token burning engineer of the company.
And they're just so effective.
Yeah.
Have like two laptops side by side and, you know, around coding agents that way.
It's like the shift from digging versus driving the excavator.
Right.
It's like press for a search instead of... But that changes the industry.
Probably the person is slightly happier, right?
I mean, that's what happened in that case.
You need less of them.
People will... But you can also build a lot more, right?
So I think it'll change the industry then.
I think there's more customization to software, to your point about building more, because there's always one bespoke tool for any business out there.
You know, there's HR software.
It covers 80% of what every company needs.
The 20%, like, I know this really well because I used to be a PM on these enterprise softwares.
We build APIs, so internal teams build their version.
That's right, yeah.
And then now we just have turtles all the way down.
Like we build the base layer, the internal team builds next layer, and then developers are like oh, it still doesn't work.
Let me build something else.
Yeah.
But now with vibe coding, I actually think customization is just easier and easier than ever.
You may or may not even need a centralized team to build that layer using, you know, a commercial solutions APIs.
You can just code it up yourself like what I did.
Something I've been thinking about is what's the next workflow or automation going to be?
Like before we have Zapier and other great RPA tools of the world to make it work.
Now with vibe coding, obviously you still need to know code to some extent to make it work.
How would that change?
I think we'll just end up having more workflows running somewhere.
The question is how can we unlock the new developers who are not traditionally technical but now are writing code to implement these?
Maybe they don't need a graphical interface.
Or if they do need a graphical interface, it can be represented by JSON, which is more agent-friendly.
Yeah, in fact, we're starting to see almost self-extending software, right?
Software where a user with a prompt can add additional functionality.
Yeah, that's so true.
Yeah, yeah.
Which is crazy.
Is that a trend?
I think it is a trend.
Will the next version of Microsoft Word not the next version, but maybe a couple of versions down the road have an add feature button and they help menu.
So software?
I think the takeaway point is software is having more affordance than before because of the ability to integrate LM.
And what I mean by that is before.
If I'm a marketing company, I ship a feature so people can visualize six charts.
Now I ship a chat session with the LLM.
LLM can reach back to my data and the LLMs generate code to materialize whatever charts people want to see.
So it's more than six.
It's like thousands and hundreds and thousands of things that people will want to see.
So the interaction model between end user of the marketing software and LLM becomes important.
It can materialize net new features using their own words.
So prompt, which is very different from the four software teams that are shipping feature by feature.
So now with all that, what do you think people want to build?
Or what do you think developers should be building?
What do you think the world needs?
It needs so much.
I mean, there's two things I'm sure about.
One is.
This is, I would say over the last three, four decades, probably the best moment in time to start a company in the development space.
If you have such a massive disruption.
This is what allows a startup to really grow and scale and pick a battle with the incumbents.
I think we've seen that with GitHub Copilot for Microsoft first in the market Relationship to the number one model company with OpenAI.
They have the number one source code repo.
They have the number one IDE.
They have the best enterprise sales force.
And still, we're seeing a swarm of competitors that are all doing very, very well against them.
So this is really the time.
The second thing that I'm 100 convinced of is that the good ideas are not coming from the VCs, but from the entrepreneurs.
That's so true, yeah.
So if you spot an opportunity to do something better with AI right now, you can probably add value right.
And then it's about fast executions, about building a great team.
You know, it's about running very, very fast.
But, you know, my prediction is I think we will...
We will fund dozens of companies in this space going forward.
Yeah, we are excited to just fund the next wave of startup.
But if you're looking for ideas, here are two general directions.
The first one is, what are the traditional workflows that you can now reinvent?
It might not be one-to-one.
So like a better Git may not be Git exactly.
It might be Git and something else.
And then, if you just map out the value chain, like what we have on the blog post, you can pick a box and decide what you want to do with it.
I think that's right, yeah.
That's one way to do it.
The other way to do it is very differently from before.
Like as product people, we used to only build for humans, other developers.
Now we actually build a lot for the agents.
Agents are the customers.
Does the agent need a better context?
No.
Well, you should build for that.
Does the agent want, you know, lower latency for certain models?
Well, there are companies shipping you know code apply models that you know operates way faster and with higher accuracy.
That's also a need.
And when you look into where agents don't yet work, there's just plenty of things to work on.
You know, from just like easily resumable sandbox.
I know there are great companies already building that.
Or from to like how do you enable the agent to kind of smash PR review process with the development process?
There's just so much more there to reinvent how agents could work.
So treat agents as your customer.
Yes.
And built for them.
The classic infrastructure, right?
Absolutely.
No, I think this is really an amazing time to start a company in this space.
Yeah.
And subscribe to our Substack at a16z.substack.com.
Thanks again for listening, and I'll see you in the next episode.
Please see a16z.com forward slash disclosures.
