- Development velocity is very noticeably much higher across the board. Quality is not obviously worse, but it's LLM assisted, not vibe coding (except for experiments and internal tools).

- Things that would have been tactically built with TypeScript are now Rust apps.

- Things that would have been small Python scripts are full web apps and dashboards.

- Vibe coding (with Claude Desktop, nobody is using Replit or any of the others) is the new Excel for non tech people.

- Every time someone has any idea it's accompanied by a multi page "Clauded" memo explaining why it's a great idea and what exactly should be done (about 20% of which is useful).

- 80% of what were web searches now go to Claude instead (for at least a significant minority of people, could easily be over 50%).

- Nobody talks about ChatGPT any more. It's Claude or (sometimes) Gemini.

- My main job isn't writing code but I try to keep Claude Code (both my personal and corpo accounts) and OpenCode (also almost always Claude, via Copilot) busy and churning away on something as close to 100% of the time as I can without getting in the way of my other priorities.

We (~20 people) are probably using 2 orders of magnitude more inference than we were at the start of the year and it's consolidated away from cursor, ChatGPT and Claude to just be almost all Claude (plus a little Gemini as that's part of our Google Whateverspace plan and some people like it, mostly for non-engineering tasks).

No idea if any of this will make things better, exactly, but I think we'd be at a severe competitive disadvantage if we dropped it all and went back how things were.

I presume I'm not the only one.

My hypothesis is that companies dont want to offer cheaper nor better services. Only want to cut costs and keep the revenue for investors.

I other news, TQQQ is pretty high!

And also because the Plan agent generates a huge plan, asks me a couple yes/no questions with an obvious answer, and then regenerates the entire plan again. Then the Build agent gets confused anyway and does something else, and I have to round-trip about 5 times with that full context each time.

But yea it's not gonna make facebook 20% better tomorrow just that you need 5 people instead of 40 to build the next facebook.

Another project I'm seeing in the same realm is taking an approved protocol and some study results and checking that the records of what was done match what they said they could do in the approved protocol. It can also make sure that surgical records have all the things they should have. This can help meet one of the requirements from the national accreditation organization to do "post approval monitoring".

Another way I've used it is to have it collate and compare a particular kind of policy across many institutions who transparently put their policies online. Seeing the commonality between the policies and where some excel helped me rewrite our policy.

This is work that just wasn't happening before or, more accurately, it was being spread over lots of people, and any improvement in efficiency or consistency is hard to measure.

And yet.. building shit is no longer the sole domain of the software engineer.

That's the sea change.

I've literally had finance and GTM stand things up for themselves in the last few weeks. A few tweaks (obviously around security and access), and they are good to go.

They've gone from wrangling spreadsheets to smooth automated workflows that allow them to work at a higher level in a matter of months.

That's what all this AI is doing. The shit we could never get the time to get around to doing.

That "more expensive" is someone's revenue. May be AI is the kind of technology that allows to make more and more revenue by making things more expensive and worse than by making them better and cheaper.

Can you explain how that’d work? What would the $30B figure be based on if they only have $100 in revenue?

No doubt as of currently Google has a better business. But the same argument could have been said about Instagram or Whatsapp before Facebook (now Meta) acquired them.

US law here is nuanced. Good quick primer https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui...

Now, that’s a name I haven’t heard in a long time.

couldn't this just be framed / spun as just using search data as training? i don't seem being bundled enough to run afoul with anti-trust.

Running at a loss long enough to kill the competition is basically the name of the game these days.

When Uber started, they were basically setting VC money on fire by selling rides at a loss to destroy the taxi market.

Buwahahahahahahahhahah

They drop a little cash on some shitcoin the president controls and those problems go away.

This is why SpaceX could be a dark horse in this race. Putting compute in space is expensive but so is building a data center in the US.

Who could call me a starry-eyed idealist? I have invested in bunkers.

Like ex-developer turned PM who is now vibe coding everything they can and thinks it's the greatest thing ever.

To the GP: I'd like some details of these "insanely agile products". Is this insane agility reflected by your customers saying that they have a better, faster, more reliable product? How are you measuring this?

It's tedious because the insistence doesn't seem to be matched by much observable change.

How much of that 60K does Ford actually keep? And how much will it be once BYD is allowed in the US? The forecast for Ford is pretty much only downwards, the possible upside on AI is huge.

If every company in the F500 starts spending $2000+ on AI credits per employee, then every consumer product will indirectly be funding AI companies. I think it's already the case that companies small enough to avoid/skip getting O365 or Google Suite subscriptions will pay for AI first.

AI company revenues aren't driven by consumer subscriptions.

The people doing $20 or even $200 per month plans for their side projects aren't driving the demand. It's going to be business customers spending $1000/month or more per developer and all of the companies feeding their business processes through the API like call centers, document processing, and everything else.

If you're thinking of AI companies as consumer plays you're only seeing the tip of the iceberg. We get cheap access to Claude because they want us playing with it so when it comes time for our employers to choose something we can all lobby for Anthropic.

How many businesses are paying Ford $10 million per annum?

I'm not who you were replying to, but:

My work pays for $100/mo Claude, I pay another $100 to bring it up to $200/mo level because:

    - Partly: I got in the habit back when work was only paying $20 and I was paying the $180.
    - It is not worth it to me to spend braincells trying to optimize my use to slip into the $100 plan, I give everything "Opus, effort max" and with the $200/mo plan I never run out ($100 I'll run out mid-morning).
    - I run a *lot* of experiments, including work-related and personal, to try to understand and improve my AI use skills.
    - I also use it for a lot of personal things, right now I'm using it to help me plan a backyard studio and ADU.

edit: Formatting, ccusage

I pay for my own AI provider subscriptions because keeping work and personal strictly separated is important for me. I do know some people who secretly pay $200/month for Claude and use it at their job even though it's not approved. I do not recommend doing that, but it shows that some people value this for their work.

For developers earning more than $10K per month, spending less than 1% of salary on tooling to make the job easier is easy to justify.

It took about two weeks of really running it through its paces, and constantly slamming against the limit on it to convince me I had to upgrade to at least the 100/month sub, and at this point I wouldn’t blink to bump that to the 200/month if necessary.

I 100% believe we’re in a bubble, and that this level of compute isn’t sustainable at this price point, but for as long as I have it, I’m going to run it at the redline.

I’m a solo dev working on a project that I’ve just gone full-time on, after about 1.5 years of part time work. It’s a codebase that I laid the groundwork in, and has very well established systems, standards, and constraints.

The work I’m using Claude to do is the exact work I would be doing myself, but it does it at somewhere in the neighborhood of 5-10x the pace I could have. I don’t know that I could get the same rate of production if I managed a team of 2-3 programmers. Right now, it’s literally almost perfect at taking my iterative suggestions, and implementing them at that accelerated pace.

Honestly the hardest part is dealing with the fact that at the end of the day, I have to understand this codebase perfectly (solo dev and all that), so I have to take in changes to it that are also 5-10x the rate my normal intuition would. But, again, the plus side is that it’s implementing them essentially exactly as I would have, as it has ~20k lines of code that I wrote to use as an example.

If I were to hire even one other programmer, I’d be paying well north of 5k/month, and I’d not only be managing a super computer programmer tool, but an actual human being as well. $100/month might as well be free comparatively.

"Disney cancels $1B deal with OpenAI after video platform Sora is shut down: 'The future is human'" https://finance.yahoo.com/sectors/technology/articles/disney...

And if I recall correctly the AI datacenter deal isn'tdoing Oracle stock any favours.

Anything to invigorate the desktop.

Microsoft buying OpenAI.. 10 minutes later it's rebranded Copilot.. and.. nothing much changes in the world. Oh, except all the AI improvements are around Enterprise governance.

First, become a billionaire. Then, start an airline.

That said, certain sectors like software (as in custom enterprise grade software dev) pull revenues that are much much higher sitting around 35%, but it's not that common.

This is true. OpenAI WAS the story of AI, now it is just 50% of it, at max. Losing the monopoly of imagination towards AGI is bad for them.

One thing I don't agree though, consumers aren't the important part of AI, they are a liability.

AI is too expensive, consumers can't pay for it. Instead they will compete with enterprise for the same tokens, with less money.

This is my suspicion. Consumers hadn’t previously heard of Anthropic and Claude. Now they had, particularly in cities.

> this won't actually be the cause of OpenAI's downfall, should it happen. But I still think it's an interesting inflection point

Also agree. Hence why I said “I don’t think” the fight is “the ultimate cause.”

Opposite of what you said. The "dig" was not retrenching to more use, but rather I evaluated what I saw them doing and have migrated our company to much better options.

It wouldn't call it TDS but it does project a severe political blind spot.