11 ms·
The Anthropic Economic Index
- linux_devil 2y agoAssuming that AI adoption is more prevalent in the technical domain, could this be one of the reasons why it is leaning towards computer and technical usage?
- albert_e 2y agoInteresting are there any other good reads on the Economic impact of AI that is not just hype or marketing but more considered analysis of data / indicators?
- seydor 2y agoI ve stopped believing any of this PR from AI companies that are trying to justify their huge valuations with some nebulous societal impacts that we have yet to see any trace of. Stop talking about the damn thing and show me the thing
- gmaster1440 2y agothe entire premise of this economic index is that they're showing you actual usage and insights from millions of anonymized claude conversations.
- ActionHank 2y agoAs PR
- acomms 2y agoIs there a way to do it as not PR?
- ActionHank 2y agoYes, publish a paper or the stats. Putting it on your company blog is marketing, always. The only exception is PornHub insights, because they don't need to advertise and the people reading are there for the insights.
- simonw 2y agoHere's the paper: https://assets.anthropic.com/m/2e23255f1e84ca97/original/Economic_Tasks_AI_Paper.pdf https://assets.anthropic.com/m/2e23255f1e84ca97/original/Eco...
- ActionHank 2y agoIt's pretty great that the AI bros have gotten quieter now. It was frankly exhausting. Instead of getting robots that do the laundry and clean the kitchen we got robots that do token work in a showroom at a BMW factory. All the knowledge surfaced through LLMs was already mostly available online, they just make it more cohesive. It is better search. Devs have figured out that creating a login page over and over is not a job, and that is now somewhat automatable. Also everyone hates the name Devin now.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- slama 2y ago> Overall, we saw a slight lean towards augmentation, with 57% of tasks being augmented and 43% of tasks being automated. I'd like to see a comparison to the data 6 months ago, before Sonnet 3.5. I suspect the automation rate will track up over time, but that may mostly be captured by API usage which isn't in the dataset.
- rvz 2y agoAI companies: But don't worry, AI chatbots will create a UBI utopia where we will not do any work and we will have a future that will give us more time back and would never have to pay for work or food again! /s Here's the reality: You are getting displaced. Companies like Anthropic and OpenAI screaming about AGI are repeatedly lying to you as they raise more money while Meta (who are laying off staff today), Salesforce (announced layoffs as well) [0], Klarna (not hiring), etc are admitting this in front of us (and laughing at all of us). Do you get it now? I'm giving you a 5 year head start of their plan before it becomes a complete catastrophe for the market. [1] [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42975813 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42975813 [1] https://www.weforum.org/publications/the-future-of-jobs-report-2025/ https://www.weforum.org/publications/the-future-of-jobs-repo...
- soco 2y agoI don't think I can eat the output of some AI chatbot...
- keybored 2y agoIt’s time to take up socialism, folks.
- bbor 2y agoYup. If you disagree that's fine, I'm 99% sure you just disagree about the words -- it's time to take up whatever "real" democracy means to you! A democracy where increased productivity doesn't make people worry that they'll paradoxically have less. A democracy where power is neither hereditary nor selfish, but rather a civic sacrifice. A democracy where human flourishing is the goal, not a side hustle.
- xnx 2y agoI wouldn't expect Anthropic to have any special knowledge/insight in this area aside from the data they have on usage of their own tools. As such, I'd be much more interested to see some "Google Trends"-like data about Anthropic usage. Unfortunately, since AI is dynamic and competitive industry, I don't think anyone will be sharing information like that for a long time.
- 827a 2y agoHonestly, simply releasing a graph showing the trendline of their own metrics on e.g. inference would speak volumes. They have this data already, 100%, its on some grafana dashboard the on-calls are watching every day. My suspicion is that some AI providers (OAI/Google) are watching these metrics go up-and-to-the-right quite consistently, but Anthropic's isn't doing that.
- rsanek 2y agodepends on if you count API usage. OpenRouter shows that it's pretty clearly up and to the right thanks to tools like cursor -- they're at 2x the volume vs. just 3 months ago https://openrouter.ai/anthropic/claude-3.5-sonnet:beta/activity https://openrouter.ai/anthropic/claude-3.5-sonnet:beta/activ...
- corry 2y agoIMO it's a mistake to get too caught up in the (admittedly self-described) goal of modelling AI's economic impacts. Instead, this is a super rare and valuable look into who/what/how folks are doing with Claude across millions of conversations, nicely categorized by function and task. The economic impact data (i.e. wages) that they might overlay onto that usage data is a separate thing that -- of course -- is more subjective and likely to be part of some PR machinery about the public value of AI etc. But as to sharing the raw usage data itself - we should applaud it! What a useful window into how this stuff is being used in the real-world. Will OpenAI release similar data? Why or why not? I hope they will. It elevates the discussion for everyone, and frankly would be 'good business' if it gets people thinking about who/how AI could be used at their organization with more granularity.
- suddenlybananas 2y agoTo what degree can you really trust these data? They obviously have a financial interest in playing with the numbers.
- chairhairair 2y agoI would say it is trust worthy because if it were found to be gamed then Anthropic’s reputation would crater. But, we found out that OpenAI is/was gaming benchmarks (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42761648 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42761648) and that seems to be forgotten history now - so I don’t know.
- diggan 2y ago> I would say it is trust worthy because if it were found to be gamed then Anthropic’s reputation would crater. But on the other hand, how would we found out that they've gamed the numbers, if they were gamed? Unless you work at Anthropic and have abnormally high ethics/morals, or otherwise private insight into their business, sounds like we wouldn't be able to find out regardless.
- marcosdumay 2y agoHave you noticed that the numbers are all relative? Unless they are trying to mislead competitors (who don't look at their own numbers...), they have no reason at all to game those numbers there.
- throwpoaster 2y agoI wish Anthropic luck. The company seems to be operating in a classic failure mode: being more concerned with its industry than its competitors and customers. See the first few points here: https://brief.bismarckanalysis.com/p/27-insights-from-three-years-of-bismarck https://brief.bismarckanalysis.com/p/27-insights-from-three-... Where I could be wrong is the CEO is technical, however most of what I hear from them is about industry and social impact instead of product.
- phillipcarter 2y ago> however most of what I hear from them is about industry and social impact instead of product Have you considered that, since they are a public benefit corporation staffed with people who left OpenAI in part due to more capitalistic pursuits, this is by design?
- throwpoaster 2y agoI am saying they are choosing to operate inside a failure mode, not that they are doing so accidentally.
- phillipcarter 2y agoWhat will fail?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- thorum 2y agoPotentially a good source of startup ideas: Look where AI is being underutilized vs its economic potential and go there.
- hello_moto 2y agoPretty clear the answer is the hi-tech industry.
- brap 2y agoSeems like Anthropic has too much money on their hands and are looking for ways to spend it. It’s surprising to see lean AI startups accumulate fat so quickly. Usually this sort of wheel spinning is reserved for large corporations. And it’s not just them. To me this trend screams “valuations are too high”, and maybe hints at “progress might start to stagnate soon”.
- SpicyLemonZest 2y agoI don't see it. This is just an analysis of how Anthropic customers are using the product and what investment areas seem most promising in the future - why wouldn't they want that?
- sofixa 2y agoEven on the contrary, this is very important information to have, in order to understand your customer base and how sticky you are with them, what features you need to focus on, etc etc
- nerdponx 2y agoIt's clearly more than an interesting tech blog post written by one of the data guys in their spare time. It's an "initiative". That said, this doesn't seem like completely superfluous "fat" like what Mozilla does. It seems very much targeted at generating interesting bits of content marketing and headlines, which should contribute to increasing Anthropic's household brand name recognition vs. other players OpenAI, as well as making them seem like a serious, trustworthy institution, rather than a rapacious startup that has no interest in playing nice with the rest of society. That is: it's a good marketing tool. My guess is that they developed it internally for market research, and realized that the results would make them look good if published. Expect it to be "sunset" if another AI winter approaches.
- peterlk 2y agoI disagree. I think Anthropic, like the other big players, is trying to get some of that government money. Releasing policy-adjacent papers seems like a way to alert government officials that Anthropic ought to be in the room when the money starts changing hands.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- thundergolfer 2y agoNot really any surprises here, if you’ve been following this stuff. I’d be much more interested in understanding what is holding up penetration of Claude and the rest into medicine, finance, and law. This may just be my ignorance, but it seems that distributed version control is a highly valuable technology which hasn’t penetrated that well into law. If this is true—my evidence is only anecdotal, talking with lawyers—then it should provide partial insight that translates into the problem of LLM adoption.
- vonneumannstan 2y agoIts a public benefit research company. Expecting it to behave like a normal Corporation is missing the point...
- cma 2y agoIt's nice that their public benefit charter terms are actually public unlike Blue Sky's, where bsky can have anything in there even just minor benefits stuff and still be pretty much a normal corporation.
- asadotzler 2y agoB corps are normal corporations.
- rafaelmn 2y agoFeels like a page of graphs where Anthropic team discovers that Claude is the best coding model and is used mostly by devs. And they have no penetration in general population compared to OpenAI
- mlinhares 2y agoRead it as that as well, I think this mixes the "there is no penetration in that market" with "we have not been able to get these people to use our tools".
- hall0ween 2y agoDoes OpenAI have similar data available to compare to?
- CL_ergo 2y agoI laughed out loud at their chart showing that Sonnet had a higher share of coding questions, whereas Opus had more writing. If they would just look at their product, they'd see that it literally says it in the model description that Opus is better for writing. If you advertise one of your models as geared for task X, the insight that people use it more for task X isn't really an insight.
- AnEro 2y agoEveryone in the comments seem to not like the article or see it as a waste of time. I just don't think we are the audience they wanted for this, I think they want to show the average business owner the realistic potential and public (journalists that will distill this later) they are aware of the impacts and what to expect. I don't read it as fear AI, I read change is happening because of AI.
- ajmurmann 2y agoThey also call out how it's more used for augmentation rather than full automation which will address some concerns the public has.
- s_dev 2y agoTools empower those with knowledge further than those without knowledge. The fact that people were concerned layman were simply going to be able to take on experienced programmers at their day jobs was farcical.
- neom 2y agoI'm not a dev but I thought the issue from a senior dev perspective was AI on AI, not layman on AI?
- ajmurmann 2y agoIt seems like you get downvoted, but I think you touch on something important. IMO, right now there are two limitations with AI replacing experienced developers: a) It's not good enough at programming. It sometimes goes down rabbit holes and cannot get out. In other cases it comes up with ridiculously complicated solutions that could be solved much simpler. b) Making assumptions instead of gathering requirements. I suspect that a) will get better over time. I also suspect that b) can be addressed by a pre-programmed prompt-flow that uses a LLM to gather requirements from a PM and ask probing questions to get a well-defined scope and agree on how edge cases should be handled. It doesn't seem far-fetched that a AI also would be able to call out small requirement changes that might allow for much simpler/faster solutions.
- keybored 2y agoIndependent of whatever this org does, it makes perfect sense for economists to start to track when wage labor can be gotten rid of (in line with the AI Hype).
- ajmurmann 2y agoAwesome that there are releasing this paper and the associated data. I hope they'll do this regularly, so that changes can be tracked. One thing I hope they'll correct going forward is inclusion of API usage. Anecdotally, I only use Anthropic models via Cursor. So none of that usage shows up in here. I'd expect that specialized tools/interfaces like Cursor will grow and thus more usage will shift to API. It would be a shame to miss out on that in the data set.
- rsanek 2y agohaven't they committed to not training on / using data submitted through API?
- cruffle_duffle 2y agoTools like cursor have to be huge chunk of their traffic. I mean Cursor and Sonnet are like two peas in a pod. Even if they don’t train on the data they could break it down by user agent / API client ID and infer something about cursor traffic.
- bwhiting2356 2y agoI expect more 'automation' to happen through the API than 'augmentation'.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- itkovian_ 2y agoIncredible how low usage is among lawyers. Does anyone have any intuition on why?
- jeffbee 2y agoLawyers are selected for critical thinking skills and they aren't vulnerable to AI hype the way relatively poorly educated computer guys are.
- jdnier 2y agoInteresting article relating Adam Unikowsky asking for Claude to decide a Supreme Court case: https://blog.plover.com/tech/gpt/presidential-emoji.html https://blog.plover.com/tech/gpt/presidential-emoji.html "Claude is fully capable of acting as a Supreme Court Justice right now."
- cbg0 2y agoBecause LLMs make things up and the lawyer is liable for using that made up information.
- drewbeck 2y agoMy guess is bc hallucinations in a legal context can be fatal to a case, possibly even career endu g — there’s been some high profile cases where judges have ripped into lawyers pretty destructively.
- aithrowawaycomm 2y agoPart of it is selection bias, Claude is much less general-audiences than ChatGPT. But any lawyers using LLMs in 2025 deserve to be disbarred: "A Major Law Firm's ChatGPT Fail" https://davidlat.substack.com/p/morgan-and-morgan-order-to-show-cause-for-chatgpt-fail-in-wadsworth-v-walmart https://davidlat.substack.com/p/morgan-and-morgan-order-to-s... "Lawyer cites six cases made up by ChatGPT" https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/05/lawyer-cited-6-fake-cases-made-up-by-chatgpt-judge-calls-it-unprecedented/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/05/lawyer-cited-6-f... "AI 'hallucinations' by ChatGPT end up costing B.C. lawyer" https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/ai-hallucinations-created-by-chatgpt-ends-up-costing-bc-lawyer/ar-BB1iZIo0 https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/ai-hallucinations-creat... The list goes on and on. Maybe there's a bespoke RAG solution that works...maybe.
- dievskiy 2y ago> public dataset I see only few images available to download
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- dialup_sounds 2y agohttps://huggingface.co/datasets/Anthropic/EconomicIndex/tree/main https://huggingface.co/datasets/Anthropic/EconomicIndex/tree...
- 80-beats 2y ago[dead]
- rm_-rf_slash 2y agoI’m not surprised most of their usage is for coding tasks, but I wonder if that reflects a kind of selection bias. HN and programming subreddits rave about Claude for coding, so it’s possible that a lot of developers use Claude for coding, but the average AI use case may weight differently on ChatGPT or Grok. In my experience, if ChatGPT can’t solve a coding problem, I try again on Claude. Although this happens less frequently since upgrading to o1-pro and o3-mini-high. And I haven’t used Claude for anything else.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- picafrost 2y agoI think Anthropic does a good job highlighting the efforts they take to anonymize data. It’s a marketing risk even to be open about the use of this data. There are things we say or write openly without caring who hears or reads it. Things we share with friends and family. Things we share with our closest friend, partner, or therapist. Finally there is our private heart which holds the things we’re not comfortable sharing with anyone. I worry that LLMs are sufficiently anthropomorphic but not "real" enough to be privy to these latter thoughts. In the wrong hands this data is catastrophic at the individual level.
- saranshsharma 2y ago[dead]
- _nalply 2y agoI do wonder how much of the population is using AI. On page 7 of the paper there's the diagram "Minimum fraction of tasks in use". On the left side about 75% of occupations use at least one tasks and on the right side the maximum is some occupation that uses slightly more than 95% of the tasks. Cool. Here I start to wonder how they got that graph. At the start of section 3. Methods and analysis on page 4 it's said: > To understand how AI systems are being used for different economic tasks, we leverage Clio [Tamkin et al., 2024], an analysis tool that uses Claude [Anthropic, 2024] to provide aggregated insights from millions of human-model conversations. We use Clio to classify conversations across occupational tasks, skills, and interaction patterns, revealing breakdowns across these different categories. All analyses draw from conversation data collected during December 2024 and January 2025. So this means they use real people's chats to make these estimations. I don't know Clio, but perhaps they did this? They sample chats from individuals, and some individuals never chatted and some individuals delegated all their work to Claude. But I wonder how they estimated the total numbers of tasks of an individual. I am sure these answers are found by really going deep and reading the cited sources and running some experiments yourself, but I can't be bothered, sorry. Again, I really wonder how much of total population use AI? How much? How do parts of population differ? Can this be found out at all?
- andai 2y agoI don't know about older people, but I'd wager about 100% of young people based on the hushed whispers echoing around the public library.
- danvoell 2y agoI agree this is the biggest issue. Too many folks are passing off the potential behind this stuff...this might replace the person beneath me but... As a one person manufacturing business, I've augmented 5 positions that I otherwise would have needed to hire. The end game of this is 10% of the population will be able to produce the goods for 100% of the population. That's the problem statement.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- rmah 2y agoThis is already almost true. Only 8% of the American workforce is in manufacturing and about 29% of China's (and about 1/7th is exports to the US). I'd guess that that somewhere around 12% to 15% are needed to manufacture all goods for an advanced economy. Another 2% or so for agriculture. Not really much more to go.
- ryao 2y agoTheir promise not to train on the conversations seemed to imply that conversations were private. It is disconcerting that they were not. The extent to which you need to look for loopholes in privacy guarantees these days is amazing.
- neom 2y agoTheir privacy policy is EXTREMELY easy to interpret: https://www.anthropic.com/legal/privacy https://www.anthropic.com/legal/privacy They use personal data “to improve the Services and conduct research.” Your chat interactions (that is, your "Inputs and Outputs") are included in the data they collect. and: "If you include personal data in your Inputs, we will collect that information and this information may be reproduced in your Outputs." You don't need to look for loopholes, it's spelled out plainly.
- falafels 2y agoI listened to an interview a while back with the researchers did this analysis. They developed privacy-preserving techniques, avoiding having to read user conversations directly. This is Anthropic we're talking about, they're rightly recognized as the 'ethical' AI company.
- startupsfail 2y agoExamples given at the Figure 1 are very strange, they seem to put questions like « how do I make my game run » or « make my blog post better » into occupations/productive work?
- frankfrank13 2y agoThis more or less confirms what I imagine most of us thought, AI is mostly used by engineers, or for engineering tasks. Makes sense, I wonder how much traffic comes from automated tasks (co-pilot, etc). Every time I read a report like this I do wonder if we'll ever see an ROI on LLMs. HUNDREDS of billions of dollars of spend, and 3 years in its still primarily the same crowd using it, and has yet to create a "killer" app beyond ChatGPT and Co-Pilot style IDE's. And its not like people aren't trying! Look at the recent YC batches, its all AI-for-industry. Idk man, I fear the economic reality on the backside of this kind of spend.
- physicsguy 2y agoWe’re trying to use it for industrial apps. Been over a year of R&D. Some good but often mixed results. Adherence to prompts is a big issue for us. It’s most useful not as a chatbot but to give explained descriptions of what the user is seeing, so they don’t need to dig down into 20 graphs and past history. That necessitates being able to refer to things with URIs which works 95% of the time but the 5% is killer since it’s difficult to detect issues and leads to dead links.
- frankfrank13 2y agoI tried to build a BIG E2E automation pipeline, along the lines of like, replace a team of 5 with this one simple tasks. And as I was doing it, all I could think was, just use chatgpt. Sure it can't actually automate what you're doing, but it'll get you there 80% as fast as fully-automated, with 90% less risk of error/nonsense at the end. Ironically, this company blocks all LLM websites, they even block GH on their employees' computers.
- tamersalama 2y agoI'm curious about your approach and the nature of those industrial apps. Is it more of recommender agents accessing available sources (through URIs) - or more like explainers. Would be great to connect https://shorturl.at/xdOee https://shorturl.at/xdOee
- flessner 2y ago
- azinman2 2y agoI'd love to see this analysis done for ChatGPT, which has a much bigger 'consumer' marketshare. I'm also very wary of their analysis method, given classifiers-gonna-classify. We already see it in their example of someone asking why their game is crashing and it buckets them into Computer & Mathematical occupation. I'm guessing the original question was not that of a game developer but rather a game player, so can you really call this an occupational task? Sure it's in that domain, I guess, but in a completely different context. If I'm asking a question about how to clean my dish washer, that's hardly in repairman or industrial occupations. Still, it's cool they're doing this.
- fragmede 2y agoYeah. reminds me of the ancient okcupid data analysis blogs and not the creepy one by sleep8. The group I'm surprised not to see represented in their analysis is "personal", where people I know use ChatGPT as a therapist/life coach/sms analysis&editor. and of course they crucially but understandably left off the denominator. 35% of a million requests is different than 35% of a billion. and also how many of the conversations had 1 message, indicating "just testing" vs 10 or 100 messages.
- bufferoverflow 2y ago> 35% of a million requests is different than 35% of a billion. Not statistically.
- alwa 2y agoA mentor I respect memorably explained to young me that “it doesn’t matter how big the pot of soup, you can use the same size spoon to taste it.”
- beefnugs 2y agoSorry but that mentor has a small practical imagination, a pot can be so large that the top 3 feet that you reach with that spoon could be all oil
- jtrn 2y agoIt would be interesting to know how much of this effect is also explained by factors other than income and profession, and even types of work. I work both as a software developer and a psychologist, and I love tinkering in the shop with welding and mechanics. It is extremely obvious that using AI is more available and appropriate when coding, as you're often in front of a very capable computer with a good interface to interact with. When I am a psychologist, it's not as fitting to bring out a computer and input prompts. And when I'm working in the shop, it's more of a hassle to grab the phone and ask a question. Types of work and knowledge work, obviously, are ripe for integration with AI tools, but I think the pure ease of use/availability is a major factor. Sometimes two seconds of extra work to do something is the difference between not doing it and doing it. I'm a heavy user of dictation and voice-assisted features on mobile phones, but it just doesn't cut it when you have to fight with the phone to select text and copy-paste. (The clicking of selected text to copy is so temperamental, and why the hell is the contextual menu so inconsistent after you've selected text still! I selected the text and waited for the tooltip to appear, but it only does so if it feels like it still.) Anyways, "ease of use for a given profession" vs "Actual usage" is also important, is my point... [Edit for spelling]
- Philpax 2y agoHave you tried ChatGPT's advanced voice mode, and if so, what did you think of it?
- jtrn 2y agoI have used it a lot, and I love it, but it's very limited with regards to which situations it's useful in. It's way too sensitive to sound, so it stops way to often when answering; if there is noise in the room (as there often is in a shop). It's also often not useful because it's more work to spell out every other thing that dictation is not good for. For instance, If i want to ask "What does the ICD-10 code for F320 stand for?", it might transcribe it as "What does IceDen code for F3. 120. stand for?" When I have to start messing around with the keyboard anyways, it's double slow compared to just typing on a physical keyboard. Many times when I need input, the thing in question is a technical term. This is as true in psychology as in coding. So it must have a way to correctly understand the uncommon terms, for instance, a predictable way to spell out or ask for clarification. Same with regards to coding terms. What is the chance that it correctly understands?"Explain #include <stdio.h> syntax"? That said, it's awesome as long as the question uses common and predictable words. It's just surprising how often it uses uncommon terms. Thus, it's awesome, but limited. The best use case is when I think of a topic while walking the dog that I want more information on. Then I can have a cool conversation with it while walking. On another note: It went completely off the rails for me a month ago and stopped giving useful information after it created a memory that I "want short, concise, factual, and to-the-point responses," which is true, but it went from informative to almost giving me the silent treatment and answering show short that it was useless. I feel it never got completely back to normal after removing that memory.
- ramon156 2y ago> While Claude.ai data contains some non-work conversations, we used a language model to filter this data to only contain conversations relevant to an occupational task, which helps to mitigate this concern. That's nice. My main prompt has a hint suggesting when I refer to work. I do this so Claude can assume my tech-stack. Of course I exclude or mask confidential data, but it's still nice this stuff gets filtered.
- hn_acc1 2y ago(not an experienced AI person, just a software dev whose used it a bit. Don't know all the players, every term for every model, etc) We have github copilot and augment available for making suggestions inside vscode. I don't think either are anthropic - but I'm sure they offer a similar feature. I wonder if they count EVERY suggestion offered as a "use"? Sometimes it really helps, but it makes plenty of suggestions I ignore. Does it essentially treat every keystroke as a use then, since it updates / re-suggests sometimes with every keystroke?
- logicchains 2y ago"As we predicted, there wasn’t evidence in this dataset of jobs being entirely automated" - but then later mention they didn't include API queries in the data, only Free and Pro queries on the website. Most "full automation" type queries would use the API, not the web interface (and nowadays probably wouldn't use Claude anyway due to how expensive its API is compared to Deepseek R1 or O3 Mini).
- Havoc 2y agoThat tracks well with my subjective experience. At day job - finance/office stuff - essentially zero traction despite everyone having enterprise AI subs & brainstorming sessions about use cases etc. Then go home & do some hobby coding and suddenly it's next level useful. It's not that the one is harder than the other, but rather that many jobs don't have an equivalent to a code base. The AI could I think grok parts of the job but typing up relevant content & what is required would take longer much than doing the task. There is nothing there to copy & paste for a quick win in the same way as code.
- advael 2y agoAnthropic pivoting to doing economics? Seems about as legit as most economics Probably an overall smart move, since claiming to be doing economics sometimes leads to being positioned to make policy favorable to oneself
- trash_cat 2y agoI think it's not economics per se, but a responsible outlook on society as a whole. I think it is what sets Anthropic apart, as they do focus more on how AI affects society. That is why they have an emphasis on AI safety.
- Cheer2171 2y agoWords I typed into a paid service are now public on a huggingface repo. I don't care if it is anonymized. Fuck that. I am deleting my account.
- cosmojg 2y agoUh, this isn't true at all. Did you actually look at the repo[1]? Only the metadata (i.e., LLM-generated task names and interaction classifications) have been made available. [1] https://huggingface.co/datasets/Anthropic/EconomicIndex https://huggingface.co/datasets/Anthropic/EconomicIndex
- ketzo 2y agoPeople don't react to data privacy stuff with rationality, they don't care to understand anonymization. For 95% of people it's only gut instinct, and that's all it will ever be.
- bbor 2y agoAll these comments, and not a single person wondering what exactly a "shampooer" is... IMO that's an easter egg to see if we're paying attention!
- chr15m 2y agoClaude is absolutely killing it on the Openrouter LLM rankings board. https://openrouter.ai/rankings https://openrouter.ai/rankings It seems like the most popular choice for API access.
- dzonga 2y agoAI, just like crypto - exposes narrow minded tech bro's who live in some tech utopia where tech rules the world. before it was smart contracts will replace lawyers & contracts. DeFI will replace traditonal finance. now it's AI will replace jobs - because it can autocomplete Javascript and guess the next sequence of english / {{whatever}} lang words. hell AI won't even replace CRUD software engineers who make software based on some business rules.
- iagooar 2y agoI used to use Claude.ai as my go-to LLM for everything. But then my conversations around taxes and finance got very frequently patronized by the LLM and even flagged. All legal stuff! It is just that my personal tax situation is a bit more complex than other people's because of businesses I run and geographic complications (living in more than one country, etc). It got to the point where I was forced to go to ChatGPT if I wanted to just be left alone and get my answers. Then o1, o1 pro, o3-mini and Deep Research dropped and I have almost no reason to go back to Claude anymore. These days my main use case is using it as part of Cursor for code generation / co-piloting. But that's it. If Anthropic wants to get me back, they should treat me as an adult again.
- Dahmonium1 2y agoI wonder whether a higher degree of use by a particular professional group is detrimental/threatening to that occupational group or rather to the professional groups that use it to a lesser extent. I also wonder if a number for success rate of the tasks makes for a more complete picture.
- srcreigh 2y agoThis is based on # of conversations started. That's it. It's just bad data to compare AI use across professions that spend vastly different amounts of time sitting at a computer not in any meetings.