3 ms·

Let’s see if those folks saying they’ve doubled their productivity will pay.

by amazingamazing 2y ago

adastra22 2y ago
Why would I when I can get better LLM elsewhere for 1/10th the cost?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
unshavedyak 2y ago
I've not found value anywhere remotely close to this lol, but i'd buy it to experiment if they had a solid suite of tooling. Ie an LSP that offered real value, maybe a side-monitor assistant that helped me with the code in my IDE of choice, etc. At $200/m merely having a great AI (if it even is that) without insanely good tooling is pointless to me.
- torginus 2y ago
  I don't know about you, but I get to solve algorithmic challenges relevant to my work approximately once per week to once per month. Most of my job consists of gluing together various pieces of tech that are mostly commodity. For the latter, Claude is great, but for the former, my usage pattern would be poorly served by something that costs $200 and I get to use it maybe a dozen times a month.
  - unshavedyak 2y ago
    For me i feel like most of my time is spent inventing bespoke solutions in existing infra. Less about algorithms and more about making it work in an existing complex code base, which option will have the most negative impact, best impact, performant, etc. A lot of tradeoffs to evaluate and it can be tiring onboarding people, let alone onboarding an AI. Maybe it would massively improve my job if the AI could just grab the whole codebase, but we're not there yet. Too many LOC, too much legal BS, etc.
crindy 2y ago
Seems like I'm one of very few excited by this announcement. I will totally pay for this - the o1-preview limits really hamper me.
- sangeeth96 2y ago
  What do you mostly use it for?
kraftman 2y ago
I think it increases my productivity, but I'm also not really hitting limits with it, so it's hard to justify going from $20 to $200.
owenversteeg 2y ago
LLMs have significantly increased my productivity, but in this case it'd be about the increase in productivity over the existing Pro plan. I mainly use them for generating or improving code, learning about things, and running estimates. How much better will this be for my uses? Based on my experience with o1, the answer is "fairly marginal". To me, o1 is worse than the regular model or Claude on most things, but it's best for something non-numeric that requires deep thought or new insights. I'm sure there are some people who got a huge productivity boost from o1. This plan is for those people.
creesch 2y ago
From what I have seen a lot of people who make these claims seem to be people who are working at a level where there is a lot of text being produced that nobody actually cares to read. That, or I am actually a much better developer and writer than I thought. Because while LLMs certainly have become useful tools to me. They have not doubled my productivity.

Let’s see if those folks saying they’ve doubled their productivity will pay.

adastra22 2y ago

Why would I when I can get better LLM elsewhere for 1/10th the cost?

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

unshavedyak 2y ago

I've not found value anywhere remotely close to this lol, but i'd buy it to experiment if they had a solid suite of tooling. Ie an LSP that offered real value, maybe a side-monitor assistant that helped me with the code in my IDE of choice, etc. At $200/m merely having a great AI (if it even is that) without insanely good tooling is pointless to me.

torginus 2y ago
I don't know about you, but I get to solve algorithmic challenges relevant to my work approximately once per week to once per month. Most of my job consists of gluing together various pieces of tech that are mostly commodity. For the latter, Claude is great, but for the former, my usage pattern would be poorly served by something that costs $200 and I get to use it maybe a dozen times a month.
- unshavedyak 2y ago
  For me i feel like most of my time is spent inventing bespoke solutions in existing infra. Less about algorithms and more about making it work in an existing complex code base, which option will have the most negative impact, best impact, performant, etc. A lot of tradeoffs to evaluate and it can be tiring onboarding people, let alone onboarding an AI. Maybe it would massively improve my job if the AI could just grab the whole codebase, but we're not there yet. Too many LOC, too much legal BS, etc.

crindy 2y ago

Seems like I'm one of very few excited by this announcement. I will totally pay for this - the o1-preview limits really hamper me.

sangeeth96 2y ago
What do you mostly use it for?

kraftman 2y ago

I think it increases my productivity, but I'm also not really hitting limits with it, so it's hard to justify going from $20 to $200.

owenversteeg 2y ago

LLMs have significantly increased my productivity, but in this case it'd be about the increase in productivity over the existing Pro plan. I mainly use them for generating or improving code, learning about things, and running estimates. How much better will this be for my uses? Based on my experience with o1, the answer is "fairly marginal". To me, o1 is worse than the regular model or Claude on most things, but it's best for something non-numeric that requires deep thought or new insights. I'm sure there are some people who got a huge productivity boost from o1. This plan is for those people.

creesch 2y ago

From what I have seen a lot of people who make these claims seem to be people who are working at a level where there is a lot of text being produced that nobody actually cares to read. That, or I am actually a much better developer and writer than I thought. Because while LLMs certainly have become useful tools to me. They have not doubled my productivity.