Fundamentally, the interfaces that we as software
engineers use today aren't built for this.
They're built to do one thing very deeply at a time writing code, right.
Now our interfaces need to change, and the
environments in which we do that work needs to change.
My laptop is built to do one thing at a time.
I mean, anyone who's tried to run different Python versions on
one machine knows what I'm talking about, and so are my IDs.
So my environments and my interfaces need to change.
To get the productivity out of these agents, and that's very fundamentally
what ona does is it gives you, ma, as many of these environments as
you need perfectly set up for the task at hand and it gives you an
interface that MA that helps you find flow and joy in doing more things.
In parallel,
welcome to Screaming in the Cloud.
I'm Corey Quinn, and my guest today has been on the show before.
Chris Weichel is the CTO of ona, which we have not spoken about on the show
before, because once upon a time until recently, they were known as Git Pod.
Chris, thank you for returning.
Thank you for having me again.
This episode is brought to you by ona, formerly GIT Pod.
Are you tired of coding agents pushing your S3 bucket to the wrong
AWS account or having them commit your entire downloads folder
because they thought your tax documents were part of the code base?
All while using privacy policies that basically say that your
customer data deserves a nice vacation on random cloud servers.
Introducing ona where your coding agents run in isolated sandboxes.
Securely within your own VPC.
ona lets you run agents at scale with workflows, bulk open
requests that finally tackle that Java migration that you started
in 2019 or automatically fix CDEs when your scans find them.
ona also supports private AI models.
Through Amazon Bedrock that your corporate overlords might even approve of.
Head to ona, that's O a.com and get $200 of free credits using the
code screaming in the cloud because your laptop wasn't designed
to babysit over caffeinated rogue coding agents with root access.
As, as you might have picked up from that intro.
I, I have a leading question I would like to begin with.
Um, GIT Pod was an interesting name of the company
because it was, it was, oh, it was like GitHub.
No, actually.
And you sort of got to a point of understanding what it was, and now it's all
that work we did to teach you what that word was and that it was pronounced with
a hard G instead of a soft, well now we're changing it again to something else.
Why?
There's a, a number of reasons.
The one is that GI Pod as a name really doesn't make sense anymore.
One, we famously left Kubernetes, so the pod part
is out and Git isn't at the center of it all.
You know, it's, it's a very important piece of technology for sure, but so much
of what he can do with GI part now owner isn't centered around Git anymore.
So the name really has become a bit of a misnomer.
And to be frank, the amount of times we've been confused for
GitHub or GitLab or spelled with a capital P for no apparent
reason, I'm just very glad we can leave all that behind us.
So hence the, hence the rename.
I am always a little bit leery of company
renames, and that is in many ways unfair to you.
The one that sticks out in my mind was Mesosphere after they
renamed for 2D, two IQ, and I. Even now, I had to look that up to
make sure I was getting those letters correctly, and it turns out
that the correct name is now acquired by Nutanix, so, oh, okay.
It's.
Brand equity is super freaking hard.
It is.
It takes a long time to teach people things and okay, we're
going to be changing our name, our logos, et cetera is hard.
I, I saw that Facebook was able to do that to meta and
I would've bet anything that, uh, that, that wouldn't
have worked because it's been how many years since.
Google did that with Alphabet and every time in a newspaper
article to this day that we see anything about it, it is
alphabet, parentheses, Google's parent company, close parent.
It's, it's one of those things where sometimes it sticks, but
usually it feels like it's going to have that parenthetical forever.
What's your sense on this one?
My take on this is as a company, if you wanna rename, if you're,
if you're small enough, it doesn't matter because no one knows you.
If you're big enough, it's, everyone's gonna hear about it.
So, you know, it's fine if you do.
And then there's sort of the trough in the
middle where, um, it's a bit hit or miss.
I think for us, the main reason we did that is because we're really at
the precipice of a pretty fundamental change on how software is written.
With that, like ONA isn't just a rename, it's
really a refounding of what it is that we do.
It isn't a pivot, you know, it's not like we're doing something
else, but it marks a new chapter on this trajectory that
we've been on since, since the inception of the company.
And with that, we also want to be known for leading.
Uh, leading where we're going as, as software engineering
as a whole, and so the new name signifies that ambition.
Normally I would discount this to be direct as, oh, well
everything is changing about software engineering, is it though?
But I've been beating code into submission for longer
than is appropriate given how terrible my code still is.
And I, I think that it is.
It difficult to make the straight-faced assertion that nothing
is different about writing code in 2025 than it was back in 2020.
The world has foundationally changed.
You can debate where AI is making inroads versus not, but one
area in which it has excelled has been in code generation.
Absolutely.
And.
The, the way we think about this is really, we've gone
through three waves of how we write code, and the, the very
first one is where we've essentially artisanally handcrafted
every single line, say for code generation and auto complete.
And this is how we've been writing code for really
the longest time, certainly since I can remember and.
A few years ago when AI first entered the, the scene, we started to have
co coded as like copilot and the likes that gave us better auto complete.
And they, you know, made the time shorter that it, they reduced the time
that it took to write code, but they didn't fundamentally change the pattern.
You know, it was still a human sitting there typing
stuff and hitting tap tap every once in a while to get
better code, or, I dunno, better, but more at least.
And.
Not too long ago.
Essentially, agents entered the scene and they very
fundamentally changed the pattern because now it's no
longer humans writing code, but it's machines writing code.
And to what extent and how much and how well that's all debatable.
Like we can happy to talk about that.
But certainly the truth of the matter is that now we have
these things that can write and modify code, modified code for
us at a level of abstraction that's arguably a level up from.
The programming languages we've been using thus far.
And so that's a very fundamental change in, in how software is being written.
Not unlike, you know, changes from assembly code to higher level
languages to see and the likes to object oriented languages to now.
I mean, you know, it's almost a beaten sent sentence or
beaten saying that English is a new programming language.
I don't believe that to be true.
That's not, that's not the thing, because we're bad at that one too.
Yeah, exactly.
But certainly we, um, I mean, me too, like
the under specifications is a key problem.
And that is still so, so I'm not, I'm not saying this is a
new language, this is a new abstraction, but it is a way we
communicate now about code that's a very fundamental to a machine.
It's a very fundamentally different way how, how we interact with code.
We, I, I keep observing that I don't know how to live in this
current world that we're in because we spent enough money and
made the computers expensive and powerful enough that they are
simultaneously capable of doing what we mean instead of what we say.
And are bad at math while they do it.
So it's this, I, I don't fully understand this world I find myself in and
I'm starting to wonder, does this mean that I've finally lived too long?
And maybe other people would argue that I definitely have, but
it's like I have young children and they, I, I like, how do I
explain to them how computers work on a month to month basis?
It's, it's shifting under me.
It certainly moves very, very quickly.
I mean, we're recording this at, at the time that we
are recording this, literally Sauna 4.5 just dropped
Yeah.
Within the last hour of us whacking the record button, so
we have no idea whether it's good, whether it's bad, who
supports At the moment it's just anthropic out there alone.
I'm sure All the Me too.
We support this now.
We'll compiling in as we literally speak, but
it's, it is weird because state of the art.
Is still moving rapidly.
It's not the meteoric growth curve.
It's been over the last couple of years.
Things have slowed down now, but it is definitely
still showing the ability to surprise us.
Oh, absolutely.
And you know, the, the half hour before this show, I literally had ONA ads.
Sauna 4.5 support to itself.
See, okay.
The first product I've heard of supporting it is you Good work.
Your timing is excellent.
Now, I, I have to ask in a bit of confession of my own, we are
in the process of renaming our company from the Duck Bill Group
to Simply Duck Bill as we expand into a services offering as well
as pure ser as to software offering as well as pure services.
It, the group does not really carry the same weight and
internally it is hard for us to, to, to correct ourselves after.
Eight years of inertia of saying it the way that we have.
Uh, so my two questions for you are, one, do you still find
yourself referring to the company as GI Pod internally?
And two, if I were to do a grep at a word count of the
term GI pod in your code base, how many would I find?
Okay.
Do I still say get pot every once in a while?
I do, but surprisingly little like I expected it to be a lot more The general
save is GI pod now owner and then you carry on in terms of the word count.
If we looked at the ratio of GI pod to owner, in our co
base, it's orders of magnitudes, more GI pod than owner.
We have a, yeah.
Oh, we had an worldly working name of our product for the first three weeks.
We were building it, and it is that, that legacy name is still in our code base
because it, those, eh, fix that later naming decisions become load bearing.
We don't think anything is gonna break if we just
do a global find and replace at the same time.
But it might.
So that's a question of, okay, how, how much
extra work do we wanna create for ourselves today?
Mm. We're gonna keep kicking that can down the road.
Surely this problem won't get worse with time.
I mean, we, we have customers who obviously
rely on our API and we're not gonna break them.
You know, our API contracts, um, are wholly to us.
We, we won't break them.
So cl we'll, we will have GI Pot in our copays for all eternity.
The ratio is gonna shift.
Yeah.
And it has to, uh, has the product itself changed significantly?
That's, that's the other question because I find that shifting names
is, if it's not an exactly an atomic operation, it's, it's pretty close.
I mean, you only have one logo simultaneously in the upper left
hand corner, but the product itself has to simultaneously serve
the use case that it has been sold to solve for before, but also.
Uh, pivoting to embrace new things.
I, I will say I give you folks credit more so than I do.
Most companies, uh, everyone now has slapped AI on the above the fold on
their landing page and like, we are an AI company and have been for years.
Funny 'cause I look back three years ago at your conference talks.
I see no mention of it, but we'll let that slide.
In your case, you, you have taken that deeper.
You have renamed the company, you have.
Made a public declaration that this is what we are about and whether it is the
right path or the wrong path, no one can deny that you're committing to it.
Yeah.
The, you know, the thing that we've been building for.
For a very long time now, it's essentially
the automation of development environments.
It's the ability to create a development environment with a click of a
button, something that is incredibly useful for humans because it removes
a lot of work and toil from setting up development environments and
maintaining them five hours per week, uh, um, studies and, and data show.
And that's very helpful for humans and it's existential for agents.
If you want an agent to scale beyond your, beyond your machine,
and you wanna run five of them in parallel, or even just avoid that
agent accidentally sending an email to your boss having some unkind
words or accessing production, because all of this happens to be
aWeichel able on the same laptop you run your terminal agent in.
If you want to avoid all that, you need to put them
in isolated, readily set up development environments.
You are not wrong.
I, I have problems with cursor constantly because I have set up my
ZSH prompt to reflect what I need as a human being editing the thing.
It uses some power line nonsense and some other stuff as well,
because I've had, you know, an afternoon to kill and I now in
most, most, uh, terminal environments until it gets set up.
It has glyphs that don't render properly.
It has fonts that aren't present, and as a
result, everything looks janky and broken.
Most of these tools because I have, I have
gotten my shell working for me as a human.
Computers have not yet caught up to that.
Absolutely.
There's a reason why, you know, cloud calls, it dangerously skip permissions.
If you wanted to give, if you want to give it
a blanket check to do anything and everything.
Yeah, I, I can't run that on my laptop.
I have client data there.
It is a hard stop, so I, I give it its own dedicated EC2 instance and
for one side project in its own unbounded AWS account via instance role.
So there's dangerous, and then there's whatever the hell
this is, with basically an unbounded blank check to go
ahead and spin up nat gateways to its heart's content.
Uh, there's no way this will wind up being
a hilariously expensive joke at my expense.
Yeah, that's, that's a brave choice.
There I say slightly more sensible choices to, um, have this
in a controlled, guarded development environment set up.
And that's where fundamentally what Oona is and what we built at,
at Gipp put for a long time and now, um, extended for agents so.
The heart of the product that is the environments remains.
We now speak of that as ONA environments, and within these
environments we run an agent, ONA agent that that does its
work and it's subject to the same guardrails that previously
existed for these environments, plus specific agent guardrails.
So you can decide what it has access to if you want to,
you can give it unbounded access to your AWS account.
I would not recommend that by default.
Obviously comes locked down, has same defaults, but.
The key point here is we renamed the company because it signified
the next step on this trajectory we've been on all along.
You know, it's not a pivot.
It's not a random edition offshoot.
We gotta do something with ai.
It's so naturally followed that these development environments
that we built for humans also work very well for machines.
In fact, we.
When we architected the platform, we thought of machine use cases,
not necessarily agents at the time, but it was clear that there'd be
more, um, machine and machine use cases that become relevant, that also
need development environments and that fit the bill so perfectly now.
There's a lot to be said for the ability
for systems to interface with each other.
Well, I would argue that MCP is potentially a revolution in
its infancy just because now you have a, it goes beyond APIs.
These are things that self-describe in a. Parable way to each other,
what the tool is, what this endpoint lets you do that has legs, uh,
that, that extend far beyond a particular iteration of these things.
Like what?
It's effectively from my old person perspective, it's the
sense of what if every time you connect to an endpoint.
It would give you the equivalent of a man page that told you what it did, how
it worked, what arguments it could take, and best results do the following.
That is non-trivial.
I'm sort of annoyed we didn't come up with
that as a, as a standard long before now.
I mean, you know, at least you didn't try to push the semantic web for decades.
Like I'm pretty sure there's some people who, uh, you know, who are even
more annoyed at the success of something as simple as MCP than you are.
It's the, I think part of the problem and the reason we're seeing it work here
is you cannot universally change the way that humans interact with something.
Uh, source people will still be calling you GI Pod
20 years from now in some corners of the world.
The, but when you have a shift that's powered by LLMs, suddenly there is a, that
sort of global context and Overton window that moves extraordinarily rapidly.
I. In fact, that's one of the challenges I suspect you'll have is it's
going to take some time for LLMs themselves to get word of the name change.
I, I found that whenever I'm building something new and just vibe coding
something, shit posty, it'll often park it on Versal for a front end.
Now, I don't have strong opinions about front end.
I just know I'm bad at it globally.
But that's the one, the LLM picks and like I'm better correct the robot please.
Absolutely like the, you know, the name GI Pod is
essentially before the cutoff of most models right now.
But then that too will change.
Obviously there are new models.
I mean, you know, only 4.5 just dropped, so.
That, that too will change and the the models
will, will adapt and, and learn a new thing.
That said, I actually like the idea that we are so well known that
even 20 years from now someone is gonna refer to us as gift pod
I.
The question is, is whether that is some, whether that's because
people are actively using it then or someone is just so ornery and
obstinate that they refuse to accept that anything after 2023 exists.
I'm starting to see the joys of being a curmudgeon.
So these days now, since people have to take a step back and ask
the question a little bit differently since I, I imagine that
the, the nuances of the answer are, are there, what does ONA do?
Very fundamentally, the thinking goes, we now
have these machines that can do work for us.
You know that we can give a task and to
varying degrees of autonomy can do work for us.
A mental model that we found very helpful is time between disengagements.
It's a mental model coming from self-driving cause, and it describes
the time between the car disengaging and the human having to take over.
It's a measure of autonomy and seconds is essentially lane
assist and minutes to hours is backseat of a Waymo with.
Agents we're seeing the same thing.
You know where we're coming from, this tap, tap, auto complete
lane assist, and we're moving to minutes, hours of sensible
autonomous work called Code Codex on agent, all demonstrate that.
Now, the question then is how do we turn
this increasing autonomy into productivity?
Because that's obviously what we're asked for.
Fundamentally, software creation is an.
Economic endeavor.
So you know, it needs to be economical.
How can we, how can we turn this into more productivity?
And the only way we can really do that is by doing more things in parallel.
If I now need to sit there and watch the agent do its
thing, I didn't gain much because it's my time as a human.
That's expensive.
It's human attention.
That's expensive.
So how do we, how do we scale human attention fundamentally and.
Again, the only way we can do this is by doing more things in parallel.
Fundamentally, the interfaces that we as software
engineers use today aren't built for this.
They're built to do one thing very deeply at a time writing code.
Right.
Now our interfaces need to change, and the
environments in which we do that work needs to change.
My laptop is built to do one thing at a time.
I mean, anyone who's tried to run different Python versions on
one machine knows what I'm talking about, and so are my IDs.
So my environments and my interfaces need to change.
To get the productivity out of these agents, and that's very fundamentally
what on does is it gives you ma, as many of these environments as
you need perfectly set up for the task at hand and it gives you an
interface that MA that helps you find flow and joy in doing more things.
Parallel.
This episode is brought to you by ona, formerly Git Pod.
Are you tired of coding agents pushing your S3 bucket to the wrong
AWS account or having them commit your entire downloads folder
because they thought your tax documents were part of the code base?
All while using privacy policies that basically say that your
customer data deserves a nice vacation on random cloud servers.
Introducing ona where your coding agents run in isolated sandboxes.
Securely within your own VPC.
ona lets you run agents at scale with workflows, bulk open
requests that finally tackle that Java migration that you started
in 2019 or automatically fix CDEs when your scans find them.
ona also supports private AI models.
Through Amazon Bedrock that your corporate overlords might even approve of.
Head to Oona, that's o a.com and get $200 of free credits using
the code screaming in the cloud because your laptop wasn't designed
to babysit over caffeinated rogue coding agents with root access.
At some level, I'm starting to feel that my A DHD in attentiveness and
pivoting from thing to thing to thing has become something of an asset.
When you have agent driven stuff, uh, I would like it a little bit more.
If there were a healthy medium, somewhere between you have
full access to everything, go ahead and never ask for feedback
versus, oh, am I allowed to read this file that I just wrote?
There's a, there is a different, there's a sliding scale of comfort with it and
the things for which I wish to be interrupted and need to give human input on.
And conversely, there are times I see it doing things where I have
to see how fast I can hit control C because no, no, no, no, no.
I happen to know that sort of thing very well and down that path lies madness.
Absolutely.
I think there, there are two key elements that, that you brought up here.
One is globally, what is the thing allowed
to do and what isn't it allowed to do?
Right now, you know, we're as an, as an industry, we're working
with these reasonably simplistic denialists, you know, where you
tell an agent, Hey, you're not allowed to run AWS because I don't
want you to drop my production RDS instance, but the agent is gonna
get very, very clever and doesn't care about compliance at all.
You know, agents don't care about getting fired,
so it's gonna try and still make it happen.
I've worked with people like that.
Please continue.
Yeah, it's not only agents, so.
Just denying, Hey, you can't run the, AWS command isn't gonna do much good.
It needs to go deeper than that.
And that's something that we're very, uh, that we're exploring right now.
Like, how can we bake that into the environment?
How can we make these guardrails more sophisticated?
That's one.
The other is, if you're doing five things in
parallel, you know, how do you steer this agent?
How do you, how do you get good feedback?
How do you give good feedback?
And here we're.
I think we've hit a very nice form factor that
lets you guide the agent as it does its work.
It's gonna pick up your messages when, when it think it is the right time.
And we've worked hard on making sort of an emergency stop button, like you
can hit escape and it's gonna stop dead in its tracks because it's really,
really important for you to retain control over what the thing is doing
there.
There's also this idea that it, it is forcing
in some ways, rigor that I am seeing people.
Actually care about making things reproducible of, huh?
I really will need a rollback strategy here
instead of hand waving my way around it.
Because sometimes it'll do disastrous things.
And we've seen some public examples of it doing those
sorts of things where it becomes really clear that people
have paid insufficient attention to a lot of these.
Like, Hey, I just deleted my entire database.
What do I do about that?
Like, well, ideally you make different slash better choices.
Absolutely, like one interesting effect of this
is I now raise PRS that I need to review myself.
So I have an H invite code, create a draft pr, and then I
review that draft PR as though it was written by someone else.
So code that has my name on it, you know, now I need
to make sure that it's worthy of having my name on it.
Like it's still my reputation on the line here.
And so there, there is, um, uh, there's an interesting change in dynamic.
One other thing is it's.
Actually incredibly addictive.
Like for a long time I was really worried about how are we
gonna find joy and flow in this multitasking A DHD feeding.
What sounds like a nightmare, to be honest, like, you know, had
someone told me two years ago that, hey, the thing you're really
gonna do is you're gonna work on five things at the same time.
I would've taught that person to insert expletive fear, you know?
Yes.
Now.
So for me, this has been a really interesting
question is how can we find flow and joy in this?
And it turns out that one, it's an interface question, but
also as software engineers, arguably we have a somewhat.
Addictive addict, if that's the word, mindset to begin with.
Because you know who is, ah, just one more
change and then my tests are gonna pass.
Just one more change and then it's gonna work.
How many nights have we spent doing that?
So arguably there's some addictive pattern here already.
We're essentially playing a slot machine, you
know, just one more change and it's gonna work.
What agents have done is they've made it incredibly
cheap to play five slot machines at the same time.
Yeah, that, that's a good way of putting it.
It's so addictive that I've contemplated adding parental controls for myself.
Uh, I've seen git uh, work trees being used explicitly for this, where you
can check out different branches to different directories and let these
things run in parallel on either different issues or, alright, we're gonna
have a bake off and see which one of you comes up with the best answer.
What I'm waiting for is the agent now that
supervises those things and makes those evaluations.
Like I want some, I want like the project manager at this
point, I something that can say, oh, this doesn't pass muster.
Or, okay, here's a whole bunch of tasks, or I'm trying to one shot it.
We're gonna break it down and pass it out to each of you in sequence.
I think this is, this is a very interesting space.
So like the, the sort of multi-agent interaction,
I don't think anyone's corrected that yet.
Um, there are very interesting ideas out there.
This is certainly something that will come.
Also, what we see right now as a key skill now, is to really decompose
and break down a problem into a chunk that works for an agent.
Like agents are tools and so you need to learn how to use them, how to
prompt them, how to use 'em well, what, what size a problem they can attack.
You know, doing this decomposition is, is a, is a very valuable skill right
now that we'd obviously all want to be able to outsource to yet another agent.
That that is a constant problem we're all dealing with right now.
It's a universal problem where I, we are pushing
the frontier bounds here and seeing what's possible.
I think if you've only played with this stuff
a few months ago and like, eh, it was okay.
It's time to reevaluate it.
This is one of those rapidly advancing areas, and
I generally want to call out hype when I see it.
Yes, we are in a hype bubble here.
I think that is not particularly controversial, but
unlike the insane blockchain hype bubble, there's clearly
something of value here that is, this is not problem.
This is not solution in search of a problem in quite the same way.
This is something that is transforming the way some things are being done.
Now, maybe we're a little too eager to map those to everything else.
But there is some kernel here of this has staying power.
Absolutely.
And.
Is our agents gonna replace humans?
I personally don't think so.
You know, they're, they're gonna augment humans.
They're gonna make people more effective, but they're not gonna replace them.
Also, Javins Paradox is very real.
The moment we make something cheaper, we do more of it.
So we're now making software production cheaper.
So we're gonna do more of it simply, we're gonna write more software,
we're gonna write more software.
That's historically, that has been the antipater.
Think about this, where it used to be that, oh,
we're gonna solve our own custom problem in house.
We're going to write it ourselves.
I've worked in too many environments where there's
such a strong, not invented here syndrome that everyone
builds custom stuff, but becomes a maintenance nightmare.
So it turned into a point a lot of shops, my own included,
where we historically have been down this path of we're
gonna build our own custom tooling for my newsletter.
It is a rat's nest nightmare of different things
bolted together to build a production system.
And when someone asks me why I didn't use.
Curated, do co. My question was.
Wait, why?
I didn't use what?
Because I didn't know it existed, or I would
have, and it would've saved me so much effort.
But we're seeing that invert now where there's a bunch of little
things that I need to do throughout the course of my workday.
I am not going to hire a developer to do these things, and I'm not going to
sit around and build all of the, all these tools or pay for these things.
But hey, every week I need to find my top 10, uh, most engaged
posts on Blue Sky so I can put it in the hidden newsletter.
Easter egg that's in every episode.
I can write a dumb script that does that in, I, I tell an agent to do
it, and I go get a cup of coffee, and it's done by the time I get back.
Suddenly writing more software is the change for the first time.
Nons sarcastically that'll fix it, because usually that's a
sarcastic thing to say, oh, I'm gonna write the more software.
Great.
That'll fix it.
This will fix it because it's the glue between things.
Absolutely.
Also, we no longer need to excessively generalize
because the creation of software has become so cheap.
I can solve this one specific problem, and I don't need to solve it for
these other three instances because, you know, I, I can just ask an agent
to solve it for this, for these other three specific instances specifically.
And so software becomes more and simpler that way.
It, it also changes the way that I think we view the cost of doing software.
The, the pricing models for all these agent things are very strange.
I've, I've seen the leaderboards for people who are using the $200 a month
clause subscription and how much, uh, value they're getting out of it.
If they were paying per inference, it's tens
of thousands of dollars a month in some cases.
It, it makes me worry that, okay, is this as, is
this as economically sustainable as I want it to be?
'cause I'm not going back to writing JavaScript by hand.
I'm just.
Not, so I, I'm very interested in getting local inference
to a point where it can at least do the fancy tab, complete
style thing, even if it's not as good as the frontier models.
There are, there are many things I don't
need it to reach out to the internet for.
I don't need the very latest and greatest Claude
Sonnet 4.5 to go ahead and indent my YAML properly.
I, I feel like that's the sort of thing
that a model from three years ago can do.
And there's that, um, token, short squeeze article that was
all the hype on, on the orange website not too long ago.
The, the key premise of it is that, you know, tokens
get, get ever more, get ever cheaper and cheaper.
So if you just look at GPT-4 level, so Elemis ELO one 30, um,
intelligence a year ago as compared to now, it dropped by a factor of 140.
At the same time, we're using about 10 K more tokens.
So we're using an order of mag, two orders of
magnitudes, more tokens than the price dropped.
Unnecessarily we'll need to see two things.
One is, as you point out more precise models, you know, that
make that cost intelligence straight off to a point where,
where it works like this one size fits all isn't gonna scale.
The other is.
We'll need to recognize that AI doesn't make the creation of software free.
It just changes the economics.
So scaling a model is much easier than scaling humans, and this is
why we can produce more software, but that doesn't make it free.
And this time right now where we live in VC money subsidized
token land will need to come to an end eventually.
So I think we're gonna see a proliferation of different
models that make that trade off better and we'll need to see.
And we are seeing already like pricing models that are much more
aligned with the value you're getting rather than a flat fee.
Yes and no, because we're not seeing
outcome-based pricing on any of these things.
It's not like, okay, I'll only charge you if the code works like that.
That would be an interesting gamble.
But I don't know anyone who'd want to take the other side.
That's a really tough one.
Finding a way to make this one really work, I think is extremely interesting
because it aligns incentives so, so well, the question is, what is the outcome?
You know, like code working an agent can show you that the code works.
Does it do the right thing?
I don't know.
Does it solve your business problem?
No idea.
So the, you know, what is the outcome you're optimizing for?
Which is why I reckon most don't.
Price this way yet because it's incredibly tough nut to crack.
Yeah.
I, I think that this is where some of the most interesting stuff is yet to come.
So I've been doing a lot of weird work lately in random shit posting
things, and it's great watching it just get done and wait for me.
And in some cases it'll even ping me when it's ready
by hook it into, uh, the right notification service.
But.
I've been doing it hanging out on an EC2 instance, and it's
doing that in a Team Ox section, uh, too, ah, te ox session.
There we go.
And that's great, but it's a colossal pain of the butt to do that from blink.
Uh, I can do it, but it's not pleasant and it makes me sad.
Do you see a future where this gets easier to be done on
mobile devices as we're out walking around, not staring at the
big screen, instead looking at the smaller, happier screen.
Actually, this is already a reality.
So with on spinning up development environments that aren't bound to the
machine you are using ONA from, you can absolutely use it from your phone.
And in fact, we've optimized the web experience also for mobile.
The way I speak about this now is like I'm three times more
productive on my phone than I was six months ago on my laptop.
Like, let me make this very concrete.
I I, at this point, I have a four months old son and many evenings I'll sit
with him on one arm as he is falling asleep, but I don't dare put him down.
Oh, can't do that, that, that, that restarts the cycle.
Exactly, exactly.
Then I have to, you know, shush him and try and put him sleep again.
So clearly I can't use my laptop, but I can use my phone.
And so many ideas for prototypes or actual
changes that before would've been mere.
Notes now are actual prototypes.
I put them into ONA and by the time I wake up the next morning,
the conversations I've had turned into actionable code.
And that's a very fundamentally different way of working.
So being able to do this from mobile is already reality,
and you don't have to use Team X or screen to do it.
Yeah, with the weird control characters and custom keyboards and the rest.
Okay.
You, you convinced me to try it out.
A question I have for you that I've encountered a fair
bit here is the, the multimodal approach to these things.
I can tell an agent to build a thing, I, it can go vibe code.
It's hard out.
Great.
Uh.
To the point where I'll even find myself stuck in that paradigm for
things I really shouldn't be like, oh, go ahead and change this one
string here because I want to change the capitalization of something.
I, I should just be able to pop into vi or whatnot or edit that.
It, it feels like I have to pick a paradigm and stick with
it, maybe past the point where it makes logical sense.
How do you see that?
Yeah.
A lot of agents really are built for a future that isn't here yet and
maybe never will be, where the agent goes a hundred percent of the way.
And I guess the, the set of problems for which this
is true is increasing as agents get more capable.
But there are some things that lm simply aren't good at, or
when, where source code just is the better way of specifying it.
So if I want that color to be green instead of red, it's
m. Much more likely that, you know, changing the hex
myself is faster than trying to describe that to an agent.
ONA is very much built around that idea where
you can engage with code at the right level.
You can choose to not engage with it at all
directly and simply be in the conversation.
Or you can fold open a side panel and there's VS code
right there on the web on the exact same environment.
And if that's not enough, you can open a classic IDE emax if you
have 12 fingers or VI or uh, vs code and inter cusa if you want.
And interact with that with that code more deeply.
So in the same environment, I very much believe that
agents get you very far and they'll go further and further.
But there needs to be a way to engage with the code at that level.
Yeah.
Right now it just feels like that's the expensive context, which
almost as much as switching between entire projects, which I've
gotten used to, but the Ooh, different tool now it, it feels
like even the key bindings feel different and I don't like it.
Absolutely.
You also want that conversation to be there.
You know, what you don't want is to now go into, like, say you open.
An editor and all of a sudden all your conversation,
all that context, no pun intended, is gone.
You really want that continuity between
these different levels of, of engagement.
Yeah.
And then there's the other problem too of, alright, when
do I want to get rid of that context and start fresh on
this code base and have it take a different approach.
There's no right answer yet.
Absolutely.
I think this is really where it comes back to learning how to use
this tool and the tool making it easy for you to work with it.
So for example, we essentially copied Claude Code's Clear Command.
So in Owner also, it can just go slash
clear and it's gonna reset the conversation.
It's.
Features like that, but also behavior like that, that I think
will change over time as agents become more capable and as we
all learn what the right ergonomics are for, uh, for these tools,
it is still an evolving space.
So my guess, my, my closing question for you is, in that
future, as we see this evolving, what place does On Stand in
Owner very fundamentally is the mission control,
the platform for humans and agents writing software.
And that's where we stand.
And 99% of the software isn't written on on weekends, but it's written in
enterprises, it's written in large organizations, and that's who we serve.
Like we want to, we want to be able to bring these
technologies in this way of working to everyone.
And if you are a weekend warrior, please go try Ona.
Go to owner.com, sign up, try it, use it.
It works well for you if you work at an enterprise use owner.
And this is the thing that I find really exciting that we can say this.
What we're really looking to do is to bring.
Environments agents to folks in regulated industries and large
organizations who right now really struggle to get these tools in house.
You know, as an engineer, of course, I want the latest tools, of course I do.
My CISO might not be so happy with me putting my company's source or
this company's source code into some arbitrary cloud or untractable, LLM.
Where ONA stands is bringing these tools and
capabilities to large organizations and individuals like
I like that.
I am curious to see how this story continues to evolve.
I really wanna thank you for taking the time to speak with me.
If people want to learn more, where is the best place for them to find you?
The best place is to head over to owner.com.
Check out the product right there.
And then, um, also of course, Twitter,
LinkedIn, the usual places to, to reach out.
And, uh, thank you so much for having me.
No, and thank you Chris Hel, co-founder and CTO at ona.
I'm cloud economist Corey Quinn, and this is Screaming in the Cloud.
If you've enjoyed this podcast, please, we have a
five star review on your podcast platform of choice.
Whereas if you've hated this podcast, please leave a five
star review on your podcast platform of choice along with an
angry, insulting comment that you don't even have to write.
We'll let the LLM do it for you and don't worry.
It'll probably turn out fine.