Sunday, 15 June 2025

AI Economics Paradox

 

Why Getting Cheaper is Getting More Expensive

How the pursuit of affordable AI is creating the most capital-intensive technology race in history


We're living through one of the most counterintuitive economic phenomena in tech history. As artificial intelligence becomes cheaper per unit, total AI spending is exploding. It's a paradox that's reshaping entire industries and creating what might be the most capital-intensive arms race ever witnessed.

The numbers tell a remarkable story. Training a single AI model costs around $100 million today. But as Dario Amodei, CEO of Anthropic, recently revealed, "there are models in training today that are more like a billion" dollars, with $10 billion models expected to start training sometime in 2025.

Yet here's the twist: these astronomical training costs aren't even the main story anymore.

The Great Inversion

The real revolution is happening in inference—the cost of actually running AI models to answer queries, generate content, and make decisions. While training happens episodically (you build a model once), inference happens constantly—billions of times per day across millions of applications.

    THE AI COST SHIFT
    ==================

    BEFORE (Training-Heavy)        AFTER (Inference-Heavy)
    ┌─────────────────────┐       ┌─────────────────────┐
    │   🏭 TRAINING       │  -->  │   ⚡ INFERENCE      │
    │   $100M+ once       │       │   $$ constantly   │
    │   ================  │       │   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~   │
    │   Build the factory │       │   Run the factory   │
    │   (Episodic cost)   │       │   (Operational cost)│
    └─────────────────────┘       └─────────────────────┘
           ONE-TIME                    CONTINUOUS
           Big upfront                 Growing with usage

Amazon CEO Andy Jassy captured this shift perfectly in his 2024 shareholder letter: "While model training still accounts for a large amount of the total AI spend, inference will represent the overwhelming majority of future AI cost because customers train their models periodically but produce inferences constantly."

This represents a fundamental inversion of AI economics. We're moving from a world where the biggest costs were one-time training expenses to one where operational inference costs dominate. Think of it as the difference between building an expensive factory once versus paying for electricity to run it forever.

The Flywheel That Won't Stop

But here's where the paradox gets really interesting. As inference becomes cheaper per unit, something unexpected happens: total usage explodes. More usage drives higher infrastructure demands. Higher infrastructure demands push total costs back up, despite unit economics improving.

          THE AI ECONOMICS FLYWHEEL
          ==========================
                      
                   💰 Cheaper
                  Per-Unit Costs
                       |
                       ↓
        🔧 Need to    ←─────────→    📈 More AI
        Optimize              Usage Explodes
           |                         |
           ↓                         ↓
      🏗️ Higher                 ⚡ Higher Infra
      Total Costs  ←─────────  Demand Grows
                      
         💸 THE PARADOX 💸
    "Getting cheaper gets expensive!"

NVIDIA's Jensen Huang recently highlighted just how dramatic this effect has become. "Inference is exploding," , explaining that "reasoning AI agents require orders of magnitude more compute" than traditional models. These new reasoning models can require 100 times more computational power per task than standard AI inference.

The result is a self-reinforcing flywheel:

  1. Cheaper per-unit inference leads to
  2. Massive increases in AI usage which drives
  3. Exponential infrastructure demand resulting in
  4. Higher total costs that pressure providers to
  5. Optimize and scale further completing the cycle

The Infrastructure Reality Check

This flywheel effect is creating unprecedented pressure across the entire technology ecosystem:

    THE PRESSURE POINTS
    ===================
    
    ☁️  CLOUD PROVIDERS        🔧 CHIPMAKERS           🏢 ENTERPRISES
    ┌─────────────────────┐   ┌─────────────────────┐   ┌─────────────────────┐
    │ Amazon, Microsoft,  │   │ NVIDIA struggling   │   │ Stretched budgets   │
    │ Google deploying    │   │ with demand for     │   │ Can't be left       │
    │ massive capital     │   │ expensive AI chips  │   │ behind, can't       │
    │                     │   │                     │   │ afford to compete   │
    │ 💸💸💸💸💸💸💸💸💸    │   │ 🚀📈💰⚡🔥        │   │ 😰💸📊⚖️💼     │
    └─────────────────────┘   └─────────────────────┘   └─────────────────────┘
           ↓                           ↓                           ↓
       "Unusually high             "Single chip              "Can't afford the
        demand periods"             provider pricing           infrastructure
        - Andy Jassy                power" bottlenecks        requirements"

Cloud Providers like Amazon, Microsoft, and Google are deploying capital at rates that would have seemed impossible just a few years ago. Amazon's Jassy described the current moment as "periods of unusually high demand" where "you're deploying a lot of capital."

Chipmakers like NVIDIA are struggling to keep up with demand for increasingly expensive AI chips. Most AI development has been built on a single chip provider's technology, creating both bottlenecks and massive pricing power.

Enterprise Budgets are being stretched as companies realize they can't afford to be left behind in the AI race, yet can't afford the infrastructure requirements either.

The Startup Extinction Event

Perhaps most dramatically, these economics are creating what Anthropic's Amodei calls a barrier that many companies simply can't cross. "Most startups won't be able to afford to sign up for the AI race," he acknowledged.

    THE FUNDING GAP REALITY
    =======================
    
    💰 TYPICAL STARTUP           🚀 AI FRONTIER COMPANY
    ┌─────────────────────┐     ┌─────────────────────┐
    │   Series C Funding  │     │  Anthropic Example  │
    │                     │     │                     │
    │      $59M 💵        │ VS. │      $8B+ 💰💰💰    │
    │                     │     │                     │
    │   ████              │     │   ████████████████  │
    │   20% of what's     │     │   100% - What's     │
    │   needed for AI     │     │   actually needed   │
    │   frontier research │     │   to compete        │
    └─────────────────────┘     └─────────────────────┘
           😰 "Left out"              🎯 "Can compete"
    
    Result: Market concentration in hands of ultra-funded players

The numbers back this up starkly. The average U.S. startup raises about $59 million in Series C funding. Anthropic raised $450 million in their Series C and has raised over $8 billion total. The scale difference isn't just significant—it's existential.

This is creating a bifurcated market where only the most well-funded companies can compete at the frontier, while everyone else relies on their APIs and services—a dynamic that concentrates power in ways we've never seen before.

The Three Phases of AI Economics

Understanding where we're headed requires recognizing the three distinct phases of AI economic evolution:

    THE AI ECONOMICS TIMELINE
    =========================
    
    PHASE 1: 2024           PHASE 2: 2025-2026        PHASE 3: 2026+
    Training-Heavy Era      Transition Period          Inference-Dominated
    ┌─────────────────┐    ┌─────────────────┐       ┌─────────────────┐
    │ 🏭 $100M+       │    │ ⚖️ $1B+         │       │ ⚡ $10B+        │
    │                 │    │                 │       │                 │
    │ Training: ████  │    │ Training: ████  │       │ Training: ████  │
    │ Inference: ██   │    │ Inference: ████ │       │ Inference: ████ │
    │                 │    │                 │       │           ████  │
    │ Episodic costs  │ -> │ Both significant│ ->    │ Operational     │
    │ dominate        │    │ costs           │       │ costs dwarf     │
    │                 │    │                 │       │ everything      │
    └─────────────────┘    └─────────────────┘       └─────────────────┘
         Current                Transitioning             Future State
         Reality                    Now!                 Inference Rules

Phase 1: Training-Heavy Era (2024)

  • Dominated by episodic but massive capital hits
  • $100M+ models setting the bar
  • Infrastructure built primarily for training workloads

Phase 2: Transition Period (2025-2026)

  • Both training and inference costs significant
  • $1B+ training costs becoming normal
  • Infrastructure scaling for both workloads

Phase 3: Inference-Dominated Future (2026+)

  • Constant operational costs dwarf periodic training expenses
  • $10B+ training costs for cutting-edge models
  • Infrastructure optimized primarily for inference at scale

The Reasoning Revolution

What's driving this acceleration isn't just more AI usage—it's fundamentally different AI that requires vastly more computational power. The emergence of reasoning models like OpenAI's o3, DeepSeek R1, and others represents a qualitative shift in what AI can do and what it costs to run.

    OLD AI vs. REASONING AI
    =======================
    
    🤖 TRADITIONAL AI              🧠 REASONING AI
    ┌─────────────────────────┐   ┌─────────────────────────┐
    │ "What's 2+2?"           │   │ "Solve this complex     │
    │                         │   │  physics problem..."    │
    │ Input → Output          │   │                         │
    │   ⚡ (1 unit compute)    │   │ Input → 🤔💭🧮🔍📊    │
    │                         │   │ Think → Reason → Check  │
    │ ████                    │   │   ⚡⚡⚡⚡⚡⚡⚡⚡⚡⚡    │
    │ Fast, simple            │   │ (100x more compute)     │
    │                         │   │                         │
    │ "4" ✓                   │   │ "Here's my step-by-step │
    │                         │   │  solution..." ✓         │
    └─────────────────────────┘   └─────────────────────────┘
         One-shot response           Multi-step reasoning
         Cheap to run                Expensive but powerful

These models don't just generate responses; they "think" through problems step by step, applying logical reasoning and strategic decision-making. But this thinking comes at a steep computational cost. As NVIDIA's Huang explained, "The more the model thinks, the smarter the answer"—but also the more expensive it becomes.

What This Means for Everyone

For Businesses: The window for AI adoption isn't just about competitive advantage anymore—it's about survival. But the infrastructure requirements mean most companies will become dependent on a small number of AI providers rather than building in-house capabilities.

For Investors: Traditional software metrics don't apply. Success in AI requires massive upfront capital with long payback periods, more similar to infrastructure or energy investments than typical tech plays.

For Society: We're witnessing the creation of the most capital-intensive industry in human history, with power concentrated among a few players who can afford to play at scale.

The Ultimate Paradox

The most striking aspect of the AI economics paradox is how it inverts our intuitions about technology. Usually, technological progress makes things cheaper and more accessible over time. With AI, technological progress is making the underlying infrastructure more expensive and less accessible, even as the end-user experience becomes cheaper and more ubiquitous.

    THE GREAT TECHNOLOGY INVERSION
    ===============================
    
    🎭 THE PARADOX AT WORK 🎭
    
    FOR USERS:                    FOR BUILDERS:
    ┌─────────────────────────┐   ┌─────────────────────────┐
    │ 📱 AI gets cheaper      │   │ 🏗️ Infrastructure gets  │
    │ 🚀 AI gets faster       │   │    exponentially        │
    │ ✨ AI gets smarter      │   │    more expensive       │
    │ 🌐 AI gets everywhere   │   │                         │
    │                         │   │ 💸💸💸💸💸💸💸💸💸      │
    │ 😊 Better experience    │   │ 😰 Higher barriers      │
    │    Lower barriers       │   │    Fewer competitors     │
    └─────────────────────────┘   └─────────────────────────┘
             ↑                             ↑
         DEMOCRATIZED                  CONCENTRATED
         More accessible              Less accessible
         
    🌍 "AI for everyone"        🏛️ "AI by the few"

We're getting the consumer benefits of democratized AI while simultaneously creating the most exclusive and capital-intensive development environment in tech history. It's as if the internet became cheaper to use while becoming vastly more expensive to actually build and operate.

Looking Ahead

The trajectory seems clear: AI will continue getting cheaper per query while getting exponentially more expensive to operate at scale. The companies that can navigate this paradox—balancing massive capital requirements with sustainable unit economics—will likely define the next era of technology.

As we stand at this inflection point, one thing is certain: the old rules of technology economics don't apply. We're writing new ones in real-time, and the stakes couldn't be higher.

The AI revolution isn't just changing what computers can do—it's fundamentally reshaping how technology companies operate, compete, and survive. In this new world, getting cheaper really is getting more expensive, and that paradox is just getting started.

Agile Manifesto in the Age of AI

 

 Reimagining Software Development for the Era of Generative Intelligence

How the foundational principles of Agile development are being transformed—and challenged—by AI-powered coding assistants and autonomous development agents

Twenty-three years ago, seventeen software developers gathered at a Utah ski resort and forever changed how we build software. The Agile Manifesto they created prioritized individuals over processes, working software over documentation, customer collaboration over contracts, and responding to change over rigid planning.

Today, as generative AI and agentic coding tools reshape the development landscape, we face a pivotal question: Do these timeless principles still hold, or do we need Agile 2.0 for the AI age?

The answer is both more nuanced and more urgent than you might expect.




The New Development Reality

Before diving into how Agile principles evolve, let's acknowledge the seismic shift happening in software development. AI coding assistants can now:

  • Generate entire applications from natural language descriptions
  • Refactor legacy codebases in minutes rather than months
  • Write comprehensive test suites automatically
  • Debug complex issues by analyzing stack traces and logs
  • Translate between programming languages instantly
  • Create documentation that stays synchronized with code changes

This isn't just automation—it's augmentation of human cognitive capabilities. We're not just working with tools; we're collaborating with artificial intelligences that can reason about code, architecture, and even business requirements.

Revisiting the Four Core Values

1. Individuals and Interactions Over Processes and Tools

The Traditional View: Agile emphasized human communication, face-to-face conversation, and collaborative problem-solving over rigid processes and heavyweight tools.

The AI Evolution: This principle becomes both more important and more complex when "individuals" now include AI agents as active participants in development teams.

What's Changing:

  • New Collaboration Patterns: Developers are learning to effectively communicate with AI through prompting, providing context, and iterative refinement
  • Enhanced Human Focus: With AI handling routine coding tasks, humans can spend more time on creative problem-solving, architecture decisions, and stakeholder communication
  • Hybrid Team Dynamics: Teams must balance human-to-human collaboration with human-to-AI partnerships

The Risk: Over-reliance on AI tools could inadvertently reduce human-to-human communication. Teams might fall into the trap of working in isolation with their AI assistants rather than collaborating with colleagues.

Best Practice: Establish regular "AI retrospectives" where team members share their AI collaboration experiences, successful prompting strategies, and lessons learned. This maintains the human connection while optimizing AI partnership.

2. Working Software Over Comprehensive Documentation

The Traditional View: Agile valued functional software that delivers user value over extensive documentation that might become outdated or irrelevant.

The AI Transformation: This principle gets supercharged in ways the original manifesto authors couldn't have imagined.

What's Changing:

  • Rapid Prototyping: AI can transform requirements into working prototypes within minutes, making "working software" the natural starting point rather than the end goal
  • Living Documentation: AI can generate, maintain, and update documentation that stays synchronized with code changes, eliminating the traditional documentation debt
  • Self-Documenting Systems: AI-generated code often includes better comments, clearer variable names, and embedded explanations

The Paradox: While we can produce working software faster than ever, we must be more vigilant about ensuring it solves the right problems. Speed without direction is just sophisticated waste.

Best Practice: Use AI to rapidly create multiple working prototypes of different approaches, then engage stakeholders in evaluating which direction best serves user needs.

3. Customer Collaboration Over Contract Negotiation

The Traditional View: Agile emphasized ongoing customer involvement, feedback loops, and collaborative requirement discovery over fixed contracts and specifications.

The AI Enhancement: AI dramatically amplifies our ability to collaborate with customers in real-time.

What's Changing:

  • Real-Time Iteration: Changes can be implemented and demonstrated within the same customer conversation
  • Better Requirement Translation: AI can help bridge the gap between ambiguous customer requests and specific technical implementations
  • Rapid Experimentation: Multiple approaches can be quickly prototyped and presented to customers for feedback

The New Challenge: Customers might develop unrealistic expectations about delivery speed for complex features. The ability to quickly implement surface-level changes doesn't mean underlying complexity has disappeared.

Best Practice: Use AI's rapid prototyping capabilities to help customers understand requirements better, but maintain realistic expectations about the difference between prototypes and production-ready solutions.

4. Responding to Change Over Following a Plan

The Traditional View: Agile valued adaptability and responsiveness to changing requirements over rigid adherence to predetermined plans.

The AI Amplification: This principle becomes both easier to implement and more critical to embrace.

What's Changing:

  • Adaptive Architecture: AI agents can help refactor code to accommodate changing requirements more quickly and safely
  • Faster Feedback Loops: Changes can be implemented, tested, and demonstrated more rapidly
  • Continuous Evolution: Systems can be more easily restructured as understanding of requirements evolves

The Deeper Implication: With change becoming easier to implement, teams must become even better at understanding why changes are needed and which changes create the most value.

Best Practice: Establish clear value frameworks and success metrics so that increased adaptability serves strategic goals rather than becoming chaotic feature churn.

New Principles for the AI Age

While the original four values remain relevant, the AI era demands additional principles:

5. Human Judgment Over AI Automation

The Principle: While AI can generate code with superhuman speed, human judgment remains irreplaceable for understanding context, making ethical decisions, and ensuring solutions serve genuine human needs.

Why It Matters: AI can optimize for the metrics it's given, but humans must define what success actually means in the broader context of business goals, user experience, and societal impact.

In Practice:

  • Humans define the "what" and "why"; AI helps with the "how"
  • Critical decisions about architecture, security, and user experience require human oversight
  • AI suggestions are treated as starting points for human evaluation, not final answers

6. Intentional AI Partnership Over Blind Delegation

The Principle: Effective AI collaboration requires understanding AI capabilities and limitations, maintaining clear boundaries between AI and human responsibilities, and treating AI as a powerful tool rather than a replacement for thinking.

Why It Matters: Teams that blindly delegate to AI without understanding its reasoning or validating its output risk creating solutions that are technically correct but contextually wrong.

In Practice:

  • Team members develop AI literacy and understand how to effectively prompt and guide AI tools
  • Clear protocols exist for when to trust AI output and when to seek human verification
  • Regular evaluation of AI tool effectiveness and appropriate use cases

7. Continuous Learning Over Static Skills

The Principle: With AI capabilities evolving rapidly, teams must commit to continuous learning and adaptation rather than relying on static skill sets.

Why It Matters: The half-life of specific technical skills is shrinking, but the ability to learn, adapt, and effectively collaborate with AI is becoming a core competency.

In Practice:

  • Regular training and experimentation with new AI tools and techniques
  • Knowledge sharing sessions where team members demonstrate AI collaboration strategies
  • Career development paths that emphasize adaptability and AI partnership skills

Practical Implementation: Agile Ceremonies in the AI Age

Sprint Planning 2.0

Traditional Focus: Estimating story points, assigning tasks, and planning sprint capacity.

AI-Enhanced Approach:

  • AI Impact Assessment: Explicitly discuss which stories can benefit from AI assistance and which require primarily human insight
  • Learning Allocation: Reserve time for experimenting with new AI tools or techniques
  • Validation Planning: Plan for human validation of AI-generated solutions
  • Prompt Engineering: For complex AI-assisted tasks, plan time for developing effective prompts and iteration strategies

Sample Questions:

  • "Which of these user stories could we prototype with AI to better understand requirements?"
  • "What AI tools should we experiment with this sprint?"
  • "Where do we need the most human oversight for AI-generated code?"

Daily Standups Evolved

Traditional Focus: What did you do yesterday, what will you do today, what's blocking you?

AI-Enhanced Questions:

  • "What did you learn about effective AI collaboration yesterday?"
  • "Are there any AI-generated solutions that need human review today?"
  • "What AI-related blockers or limitations are you encountering?"

Sprint Reviews Reimagined

Traditional Focus: Demonstrating completed functionality to stakeholders.

AI-Enhanced Approach:

  • Solution Comparison: Show multiple AI-generated approaches that were considered
  • Decision Rationale: Explain why human judgment led to specific choices among AI options
  • Learning Showcase: Demonstrate new AI collaboration techniques discovered during the sprint

Retrospectives Plus

Traditional Focus: What went well, what didn't, what should we try next sprint?

AI-Enhanced Questions:

  • "How effectively did we collaborate with AI tools this sprint?"
  • "What AI-assisted approaches worked well or poorly?"
  • "What did we learn about prompt engineering and AI delegation?"
  • "How can we better balance AI efficiency with human insight?"

The Definition of Done Gets Smarter

Traditional Definition of Done criteria might include code review, testing, and documentation. In the AI age, consider adding:

AI-Specific Criteria:

  • Human review of all AI-generated code for context appropriateness
  • Validation that AI solutions meet non-functional requirements (performance, security, maintainability)
  • Confirmation that AI-assisted features actually solve the intended business problem
  • Documentation of AI tools used and key prompting strategies for future reference

Managing the Risks

The Speed Trap

Risk: The ability to rapidly generate code might lead to premature optimization, over-engineering, or building the wrong thing faster.

Mitigation: Maintain strong user research practices and require validation of assumptions before scaling AI-generated solutions.

The Understanding Gap

Risk: Developers might use AI-generated code they don't fully understand, creating maintenance nightmares and security vulnerabilities.

Mitigation: Establish code review practices that specifically focus on understanding and explaining AI-generated solutions.

The Dependency Dilemma

Risk: Over-reliance on AI tools could leave teams helpless when those tools are unavailable or produce poor results.

Mitigation: Maintain core coding skills and regularly practice manual implementation of critical system components.

The Future of Agile Leadership

Leadership in AI-augmented Agile teams requires new skills:

Technical Leadership:

  • Understanding AI capabilities and limitations
  • Helping teams develop effective AI collaboration strategies
  • Making decisions about when to trust AI vs. require human judgment

Cultural Leadership:

  • Fostering environments where humans feel valued alongside AI capabilities
  • Managing the psychological impact of AI on team dynamics
  • Maintaining focus on user value and business outcomes

Strategic Leadership:

  • Balancing speed enabled by AI with thoughtful decision-making
  • Investing in team AI literacy and continuous learning
  • Evolving organizational practices to leverage AI effectively

Conclusion: Agile's Enduring Wisdom

The Agile Manifesto's core insight remains profound: software development is fundamentally a human activity that requires collaboration, adaptability, and customer focus. AI doesn't change this truth—it amplifies it.

The most successful teams in the AI age won't be those who replace human judgment with artificial intelligence, but those who thoughtfully combine human creativity, empathy, and contextual understanding with AI's computational power and speed.

As we stand at this inflection point in software development, the choice isn't between Agile and AI—it's about evolving Agile practices to harness AI's potential while preserving the human-centered values that made Agile successful in the first place.

The future belongs to teams that can dance between human insight and artificial intelligence, maintaining the collaborative spirit of Agile while embracing the superhuman capabilities of AI. In this new world, the most Agile thing we can do is continuously learn how to be more effectively human in partnership with increasingly capable machines.

What's your experience with AI-augmented Agile practices? Share your insights and challenges in the comments below, and let's continue evolving these practices together.

Friday, 30 May 2025

RAG vs Non-RAG Coding Agents

Every time a developer asks an AI coding assistant to generate code, they're initiating a search process. But the question isn't whether search happens—it's where and how that search occurs. Search can be done in model knowledge base or it can use some tools to perform search.

Code Is Different - but why ?

Searching for code is intresting search problem and it has it unique challenges.

When a human programmer approaches a codebase, they don't just look for similar examples. They build a mental model of how the system works: - How data flows through the application - What architectural patterns are being used - How different modules interact and depend on each other - What the implicit contracts and assumptions are This mental model is what enables programmers to make changes without breaking the system, debug complex issues, and extend functionality in coherent ways.


What are options for code search algorithms


Retrieval Augmentation Generation (RAG)



RAG excels at finding relevant information and synthesizing it into coherent responses. This works brilliantly for answering questions about historical facts or summarizing documents. But code isn't documentation—it's a living system of interconnected logic that demands deep understanding.

- The Precision Problem: When "Close Enough" Breaks Everything


RAG, operates on surface-level similarity. It retrieves code snippets that look relevant but may operate under completely different assumptions about data structures, error handling patterns, or architectural constraints.

In most applications, RAG's precision-recall trade-off is manageable. If a chatbot gives you 90% accurate information, that's often good enough. But code demands near-perfect precision. A single misplaced bracket, incorrect variable name, or wrong assumption about data types can crash entire systems or bad user experience as code will be rejected. RAG optimizes for semantic similarity, not functional correctness. It might retrieve code that's conceptually similar but functionally incompatible:
- A function that looks right but expects different parameter types - Error handling patterns that don't match the codebase's conventions - Solutions that work in one context but fail in another due to different dependencies This isn't just an inconvenience—it's a fundamental mismatch between what RAG provides and what coding requires.

The Context Catastrophe

Code exists in rich, interconnected contexts that span multiple files, modules, and even repositories. A seemingly simple function might depend on: - Configuration files that define system behavior - Environment variables that change at runtime - Database schemas that constrain data operations - Architectural patterns that dictate how modules interact RAG retrieves chunks of information based on similarity, but coding decisions often depend on distant context that's impossible to capture in isolated snippets. The system might retrieve the perfect function implementation, but it's designed for a completely different architectural context.

- The Dynamic System Challenge

Perhaps most critically, effective coding requires real-time interaction with living systems. Coding is fundamentally about: - Writing code and seeing how it behaves - Running tests to validate assumptions - Using compiler errors as feedback - Debugging by tracing execution paths - Iterating based on runtime behavior RAG provides static information about how someone else solved a similar problem. But what you need is dynamic interaction with your current, specific codebase.

Reasoning Retrieval Generation (RRG)

RRG is new term that i am going to use for Reasoning based approach.

Lets look into what happens in RRG based approach and it can also be called Reasoning first approach.

In reasoning first approach , chain of thought , self reflection , Tree of Thought etc becomes primary tool. Lets look at how does this thing works 




- Build Mental Models in Real-Time

Instead of retrieving similar code, reasoning-based agents analyze the actual codebase to understand: - How the system is structured and why - What patterns and conventions are being followed - How data flows through different components - What the implicit contracts and assumptions are

- Leverage Tool Integration

Rather than retrieving documentation, effective coding agents interact directly with development tools: - Compilers and interpreters for immediate feedback - Testing frameworks to validate solutions - Debuggers to trace execution and find issues - Static analysis tools to understand code structure - Version control systems to understand change history

- Think Through Problems Step-by-Step

Chain of thought reasoning allows agents to: - Trace through code execution paths to understand behavior - Identify root causes of bugs through logical deduction - Reason about the implications of changes before making them - Build solutions from first principles rather than pattern matching

Trade-Off - Aspect that you can't ignore

Nothing comes for free , lets look at tradeoff of RRG

Knowledge Boundaries

RRG agents are limited by their training data. They can't access: - Documentation for recently released libraries - Community solutions to novel problems - Project-specific conventions not captured in code - Specialized domain knowledge from external sources But here's the key insight:

Understanding trumps information access.
A solid mental model of how systems work doesn't become outdated when new frameworks are released. The fundamentals of good design, debugging approaches, and architectural thinking remain stable across technology changes.


Context Window Constraints

Without retrieval, agents must work within their context limits. Large codebases can exceed what fits in memory. However, this constraint forces better architectural approaches: - Focus on understanding system structure and patterns - Use tool integration to navigate codebases systematically - Build summarization and abstraction capabilities - Develop better code analysis and navigation strategies

Specialized Domain Gaps

RRG agents may struggle with highly specialized domains not well-represented in training data. But this is where tool integration shines—rather than retrieving domain knowledge, agents can interact with domain-specific tools and APIs directly.


Cost and Resources Challenges

Needs large context models ( 100K+ or 1M)
High per request cost due to massive context usage
Not Cost optimised.
Slow inference due to processing of entire context
Instruction following limitation by LLM as context gets close to 50% fill.

What is solution - best of both world




Fusion is solution.

Mental Model Filtering Process




The battle for dominance in the coding agent landscape is heating up. Will the winner be IDE-integrated solutions like Cursor, Windsurf, VS Code, or IntelliJ? Perhaps it will be Claude Code or Openai-codex or google jules ? Or could the no-code and low-code platforms like Bolt, Loveable, Replit or Open source like Aider, or Cline ultimately ?

But here's the twist: while these coding agents compete fiercely for market share, someone else is already winning this game—and the answer might be more obvious than you think.

Tuesday, 27 May 2025

Ages of Search: From Commands to Conversations

Imagine you need to get from Los Angeles to New York to visit your sister, but you're on a tight budget. How would this conversation play out across three decades of search technology?




1995 - The Command

You type: cheap flights Los Angeles New York The computer returns 10,000 pages containing those exact words—including a poetry blog that mentions "cheap thrills," an article about Los Angeles architecture, and someone's travel diary from New York. 

You spend the next two hours going through irrelevant results, gradually learning to speak the computer's rigid language.

2015 - The Interpretation

You search: "Best way to get from LA to NYC" Google understands you want travel options and shows flight comparison tools, bus routes, and train schedules. 

Much better! But you still need to do all the work—comparing prices, checking dates, figuring out the tradeoffs.

2025 - The Collaboration

You tell an AI: "I need to visit my sister in New York next month, but I'm on a tight budget" 

AI responds: "I'd be happy to help! What dates work for you, and what's your budget range? I can also check if there are better deals on nearby airports or alternative dates. Would you consider a bus or train if it saves significantly?"

This isn't just about better search results—it's about a fundamental shift in how humans and computers communicate. We've evolved from rigid commands to natural collaboration, mirroring the evolution of human conversation itself.


Age I: The Librarian Era (1990s-2000s)

When computers were very fast, very literal librarians

In the beginning, search engines were like that ultra-efficient but painfully literal librarian who would only help if you asked in exactly the right way. You wanted information about cars? You better not say "automobile" or "vehicle"—the computer knew what you typed, not what you meant.

How the Librarian Worked

The technical foundation was elegantly simple: computers built massive indexes of every word on every webpage, then used algorithms like TF-IDF and PageRank to rank results. Think of it as the world's largest, fastest card catalog system. When you searched for "red shoes," the computer found every document containing both "red" and "shoes" and ranked them by relevance signals like how often those words appeared and how many other sites linked to them.



This approach is very innovative:

Lightning Speed: Results appeared in milliseconds 

Perfect Precision: Great for exact technical lookups

Transparent Logic: You knew exactly why you got specific results 

Predictable: The same query always returned the same results

When the Librarian Shined

Keyword search was perfect for anyone who spoke the system's language. Lawyers searching legal databases, developers hunting through code repositories, and researchers looking for specific technical terms all thrived in this era. If you knew the exact terminology and needed exact matches, nothing beat keyword search.





Breaking Point

But some of critical failures exposed the limitations:

The Vocabulary Mismatch Crisis: Normal people think "heart attack," doctors write "myocardial infarction." Normal people say "car," auto websites say "vehicle" or "automobile." The computer couldn't bridge this gap.

Boolean Rigidity: users must think like programmers

No Semantic Relationship: cannot understand dog and puppy are related.

Long-Tail Problem: By the 2000s, 70% of searches were unique, multi-word phrases. "Best pizza place near downtown with outdoor seating" simply couldn't be handled by exact keyword matching.

Mobile Revolution: Voice search made keyword precision impossible. Try saying "Boolean logic" to Siri, Alexa etc and see what happens.


Age II: Translator Era (2000s-2020s)

Teaching computers to understand meaning, not just match letters

Breakthrough question shifted from "What did they type?" to "What did they mean?"

Suddenly, computers learned that "puppy" and "dog" were related, that "inexpensive" and "cheap" meant the same thing, and that someone searching for "apple" might want fruit recipes or stock information depending on the context.

Technical Revolution

The magic happened through vector embeddings—a way of representing concepts as coordinates in mathematical space. Words and phrases with similar meanings ended up close together in this multidimensional space. It's like teaching a computer that "Paris, France" and "City of Light" should be neighbors in concept-space, even though they share no letters.

The architecture evolved from simple index lookup to sophisticated understanding: Query → Intent Analysis → Vector Similarity → Contextual Ranking → Enhanced Results








Real-World Transformations

Google's Knowledge Graph changed everything. Instead of just returning links, Google started understanding entities and relationships. Search for "Obama" and get direct answers about the former president, not just a list of web pages mentioning his name.

Amazon's Recommendations stopped being "people who bought X also bought Y" and became "people who like dark psychological thrillers might enjoy this new release"—even for books with completely different titles and authors.

Netflix's Discovery learned to understand that you enjoy "witty workplace comedies with strong female leads" without you ever typing those words.

Context Awareness Breakthrough

The same query now meant different things to different people:

  • "Apple" returns fruit recipes for food bloggers, stock information for investors
  • "Pizza" automatically means "pizza near me"
  • "Election results" means the current election, not historical data

Some of the major breakthrough in this age include 

Google PageRank Evolution

Knowledge Graph  - Direct answer instead of links 

BERT - Understanding context and nuance in natural language 

Personalisation at Scale -  Different results for different users based on context

Mobile first search - Understanding voice query and local intent


New Limitations Emerged

While semantic search solved the vocabulary mismatch problem, it created new challenges:

The Black Box Problem: Users couldn't understand why they got specific results 

Computational Intensity: Required significant processing power compared to keyword search 

Bias Amplification: Training data prejudices got reflected in results 

Still Reactive: The system waited for users to initiate searches


Age III: The Consultant Era (2020s-Present)

From search engine to research partner

The fundamental question evolved again: from "What information exists about X?" to "How can I solve problem X?"

Instead of just finding information, AI agents now break down complex problems, use multiple tools, maintain conversation context, synthesize insights from various sources, and proactively suggest next steps.

Superpowers of AI Agents

  • Multi-Step Reasoning: Breaking "plan my wedding" into venue research, catering options, budget optimization, and timeline coordination
  • Tool Integration: Using APIs, databases, calculators, and other services seamlessly
  • Conversational Memory: Remembering what you discussed three questions ago
  • Synthesis: Creating new insights by connecting information from multiple sources
  • Proactive Assistance: Anticipating needs and suggesting what to explore next
How all these super power is used during search ?




Agentic Search in Action: Wedding Planning 


Key Capabilities 

Problem decomposition - "Plan my ....." becomes n+ interconnected sub task
Real time Integration - Live data feeds , current pricing , availability
Cross domain synthesis - Connecting insights from domains like finance , market research , user reviews simultaneously 
Iterative Refinement - Learning from user in same conversation 
Proactive Discovery - Features like "Have you consider ?" or "You might also want to ..."  

Current limitations and Challenges

High computational cost - Pennies vs $1+ per query 
Latency : Milliseconds vs Minutes for complex task
Black bock reasoning : Difficult to audit decision making 
Inconsistency : Same query may yield different results or reasoning 
Privacy : Conversation history or deep context is required 
Hallucination : This will leave it as feature or bug both


Architecture Evolution: From Commands to Collaboration



What does future looks like ?

ROI progression is fascinating: keyword search provides immediate value, semantic search shows results in hours, while agentic search may take days/weeks to implement but can deliver transformative business impact.

I think answer is "All of the Above"

Modern search systems don't choose one approach—they intelligently route queries to the most appropriate method:

  • Simple lookups → Keyword search for speed
  • Natural language queries → Semantic search for relevance
  • Complex problems → Agentic search for comprehensive solutions

Google exemplifies this hybrid approach: it uses keyword matching for exact phrases, semantic understanding for intent, and agentic features for complex queries like "plan my trip to Japan in cherry blossom season."


Let me end this post with one more questions - What types of search Coding Agent like github co pilot , Aider , Cline , Cursor , Winsurf , Claude Code and ..... does ? 

They also use "All of the above". In next post i will share more about it

Monday, 21 April 2025

Amdahl's Law and the Myth of 10x Developers in the AI Age

 In the rapidly evolving landscape of software development, we're witnessing a surge in AI coding assistants and the eternal pursuit of the "10x developer" — those mythical engineers who can produce ten times more than their peers. But what if I told you that even with AI-powered coding agents, the fundamental laws of project speedup remain unchanged? Let's explore how Amdahl's Law puts a hard ceiling on just how much faster your features can actually be delivered.

Understanding Amdahl's Law




First formulated by computer architect Gene Amdahl in 1967, Amdahl's Law is a formula that helps predict the theoretical maximum speedup of a system when only part of it is improved. It's elegantly simple:

S = 1 / ((1 - P) + P/N)

Where:

  • S is the theoretical speedup of the entire task
  • P is the proportion of the task that can be parallelized or improved
  • N is the improvement factor (how many times faster the improved portion becomes)
  • (1 - P) represents the portion that remains unimproved

This formula reveals a critical insight: even infinite improvement in one part of a process yields limited overall improvement if other parts remain unchanged.

Let's illustrate with a simple example: If 60% of a system can be parallelized, and we throw infinite resources at it (N → ∞), the maximum speedup possible is:

S = 1 / (1 - 0.6) = 1 / 0.4 = 2.5x

No matter how many processors, no matter how much parallelization — we can never exceed 2.5x improvement. This is the "Amdahl barrier."

Software Development Through the Amdahl Lens

Now, let's apply this principle to software development. The creation of software isn't just about writing code — it's a complex, multi-stage process with inherent dependencies.

Here's a reasonably comprehensive breakdown of a typical software development lifecycle:

  1. Requirements gathering & analysis: 15% (largely sequential)
  2. Design & architecture: 15% (partially parallelizable)
  3. Coding/implementation: 25% (highly parallelizable)
  4. Security assessment: 10% (partially sequential, requires implementation)
  5. Testing & QA: 15% (partially parallelizable)
  6. Deployment: 5% (mostly sequential)
  7. Monitoring & maintenance: 10% (ongoing, mostly sequential)
  8. Documentation: 5% (partially parallelizable)

In this model, coding represents only 25% of the overall process. The rest includes activities that are either inherently sequential or have complex dependencies that limit parallelization.

The AI Coding Agent Promise

Enter AI coding agents — sophisticated systems that can generate, refactor, and optimize code at speeds that traditional developers can't match. The promise is compelling: what if your developers could code 10x faster with AI assistance?

Let's apply Amdahl's Law to see the maximum impact:

S = 1 / ((1 - 0.25) + 0.25/10) = 1 / (0.75 + 0.025) = 1 / 0.775 ≈ 1.29x



That's right — even a 10x improvement in coding speed translates to only a 29% overall improvement in project delivery time. Not quite the revolution we were promised, is it?


Lets do few more scenario where 

Multiple improvements across phases:

  • Design phase: 2x faster with AI (15% of total)
  • Coding/Implementation: 10x faster with AI (25% of total)
  • Testing: 2x faster with AI (15% of total)
  • The remaining 45% (Requirements, Security, Deployment, Monitoring, Documentation) are unchanged

Scenario 3: Extreme Improvement 

  • Coding: 10x faster (25%)
  • Design and Testing: 2x faster (30% combined)
  • Security, Deployment, Monitoring and Documentation: 2x faster (30% combined)
  • Only Requirements (15%) remains unimproved
  • Result: 2.11x overall speedup (47.5% of original time)


Final Scenario: Coding Heavy ( 50%)







Why the Gap Between Promise and Reality?

Several factors constrain the overall impact of faster coding:

1. Sequential Dependencies

Many development activities must happen in sequence. You can't effectively test what hasn't been built, deploy what hasn't been tested, or monitor what hasn't been deployed.

2. Security Assessment Bottlenecks

Security assessments often require completed functional code and may lead to rework. These assessments can't be meaningfully accelerated by AI coding tools alone.

3. Human-Centered Activities

Requirements gathering, stakeholder management, and design decisions rely on human understanding, consensus building, and domain expertise — areas where pure AI acceleration has limited impact.

4. External Dependencies

Integration with third-party systems, compliance requirements, and vendor management introduce delays unrelated to coding efficiency.

5. Organizational Decision-Making

Approvals, reviews, and alignment discussions follow their own timelines, independent of how quickly code is written.


Maximizing the Impact of AI Coding Tools

Despite these limitations, AI coding assistants are still valuable. To maximize their impact:

  1. Focus on end-to-end process optimization — Look for AI tools that help with requirements clarification, testing generation,Security Assessment,Deployment,Support and documentation, not just coding.
  2. Target the critical path — Use AI to accelerate activities on your project's critical path for maximum schedule impact.
  3. Reduce rework — AI can help create more robust code upfront, potentially reducing security and quality issues discovered later.
  4. Automate across phases — The most significant improvements come from automation applied across all development phases, not just coding.
  5. Improve requirements quality — Better requirements lead to less rework, which often has a greater impact than faster initial coding.

The Real Promise of AI in Software Development

The true potential of AI in software development isn't just about coding faster — it's about transforming the entire process. AI tools that can:

  • Translate business requirements into formal specifications
  • Identify security vulnerabilities earlier in the development process
  • Automatically generate comprehensive test suites
  • Self-heal systems during the monitoring phase

These capabilities could reshape the distribution of effort across the development lifecycle, potentially altering the fundamental Amdahl equation.

Conclusion

Amdahl's Law provides a sobering reality check on the promise of AI coding agents. While they can dramatically improve coding speed, their impact on overall delivery timelines is mathematically limited by the multi-faceted nature of software development.

The next frontier in software development acceleration isn't just faster coding — it's reimagining the entire development process with AI augmentation at every stage. Only then can we truly break through the Amdahl barrier and realize the transformative potential of AI in software engineering.

As you evaluate AI coding tools and practices, remember to apply the Amdahl lens: How much of your overall process will truly be improved, and what's the maximum speedup you can realistically expect? The answers might surprise you — and help you make more informed investments in your development capabilities.



What's your experience with AI coding tools? Have you seen them impact overall delivery timelines, or just coding efficiency? Share your thoughts in the comments below.