4 ms·

Even if that 2x were a representative number (although another HN story today says 1.1x - 10% improvement), what really matters is whether companies are overall

Even if that 2x were a representative number (although another HN story today says 1.1x - 10% improvement), what really matters is whether companies are overall seeing any AI spending return on the bottom line. There is a lot of reason to suspect that at most companies, especially more established non-startup ones, there will close to zero bottom line benefit, because these companies already have free paid-for developer capacity (developer down time between project cycles) that presumably they would be utilizing if there were reason do to so. In a startup environment where there is zero down time, then productivity may at least show up in reduced time to market. I think Uber's current experiment of limiting AI spend to 10% of salary per developer is interesting since it implies that spending more will not even recoup the extra token cost, although it does remain an experiment. Maybe they will see a revenue increase related to AI spending and choose to tweak that limit up, but it's also entirely possible that all they are doing is reducing developer workload by giving them a productivity tool, and there will be no financial benefit.

encyclopedism 3mo ago
I agree the bottom line ROI largely isn't there and won't be in the future either. The upside for companies is not the bottom line but the potential savings from hiring fewer developers or cutting jobs. As AI based development processes continue to improve, the confidence level employers will have in safely cutting jobs will increase. The longer term impact of AI is HR savings rather than introducing new capabilities into business.
- HarHarVeryFunny 3mo ago
  > The longer term impact of AI is HR savings rather than introducing new capabilities into business. I tend to agree, although this goes against the Dwarkesh narrative (apparently matching current SV zeitgeist) that there is some insatiable demand for "warehouses full of genius coders". If there really was demand for more coders (especially at the high prices the AI companies are hoping for), then companies would be hiring the unemployed developers available right now, not laying more off. I wonder how many CEOs or CTOs appreciate the massive functional gap between an AI coder like Fable and a human developer - full general intelligence, with continual learning, theory of mind (so they understand what the boss wants, not just what s/he says), etc... all available now, not some 5-10 year AGI/ASI stretch goal (that may in fact take much longer - artificial brain, not just "AGI") ...

encyclopedism 3mo ago

I agree the bottom line ROI largely isn't there and won't be in the future either. The upside for companies is not the bottom line but the potential savings from hiring fewer developers or cutting jobs. As AI based development processes continue to improve, the confidence level employers will have in safely cutting jobs will increase. The longer term impact of AI is HR savings rather than introducing new capabilities into business.

HarHarVeryFunny 3mo ago
> The longer term impact of AI is HR savings rather than introducing new capabilities into business. I tend to agree, although this goes against the Dwarkesh narrative (apparently matching current SV zeitgeist) that there is some insatiable demand for "warehouses full of genius coders". If there really was demand for more coders (especially at the high prices the AI companies are hoping for), then companies would be hiring the unemployed developers available right now, not laying more off. I wonder how many CEOs or CTOs appreciate the massive functional gap between an AI coder like Fable and a human developer - full general intelligence, with continual learning, theory of mind (so they understand what the boss wants, not just what s/he says), etc... all available now, not some 5-10 year AGI/ASI stretch goal (that may in fact take much longer - artificial brain, not just "AGI") ...