Companies are racing to incentivize employees to use AI. But as some companies are finding, the more employees that use the technology, the heavier the bill.
However, humans can be fired, but Claude cannot. Humans are also more capable of generalized learning and following procedures meant to increase quality. Moreover, quantity of human output is roughly proportional to skill in aggregate, which can limit the damage that can result from incompetence if correct safeguards and procedures are put in place.
This seems a temporary issue. AI is heuristic, afaik. If the bubble burst doesn’t sink it, it will steadily improve until companies decide it’s more profitable to make it worse. This is, of course, presuming the goal isn’t to dumb down westerners even more.
I’m not sure this is actually true. Technical debt can increase the amount of tokens that are needed to make changes to a codebase, and that will stay unless the models get good enough to rewrite the code completely while improving the architecture. Companies can believe what they want but profit is derived from the socially necessary human labor required to make a product. If the social necessity tends to zero because of AI, people will be able to use AI to make their own version of whatever software they need and it will not be needed to pay a company for it. But the most likely scenario in my opinion is huge codebases that induce more demand for tokens as models become cheaper to run, which means the cost savings may not actually materialize. Still, it is hard to say for sure at this stage.
Ehhhh, the majority of humans are pretty awful at their jobs. AI is worse than any competent human who gives a shit, but in modern office culture that’s more rare than it ought to be.
I really want to downvote you, but yes, if you pay people peanuts and treat them like shit, they don’t give you their best.
AI doesn’t have that problem so it’s great for the kind of soulless corpo who doesn’t value quality.
That may be true, but a human will also do a better job.
That does not have to be true. A human can also do a very bad job if they want.
However, humans can be fired, but Claude cannot. Humans are also more capable of generalized learning and following procedures meant to increase quality. Moreover, quantity of human output is roughly proportional to skill in aggregate, which can limit the damage that can result from incompetence if correct safeguards and procedures are put in place.
This seems a temporary issue. AI is heuristic, afaik. If the bubble burst doesn’t sink it, it will steadily improve until companies decide it’s more profitable to make it worse. This is, of course, presuming the goal isn’t to dumb down westerners even more.
I’m not sure this is actually true. Technical debt can increase the amount of tokens that are needed to make changes to a codebase, and that will stay unless the models get good enough to rewrite the code completely while improving the architecture. Companies can believe what they want but profit is derived from the socially necessary human labor required to make a product. If the social necessity tends to zero because of AI, people will be able to use AI to make their own version of whatever software they need and it will not be needed to pay a company for it. But the most likely scenario in my opinion is huge codebases that induce more demand for tokens as models become cheaper to run, which means the cost savings may not actually materialize. Still, it is hard to say for sure at this stage.
I guess we’ll see soon enough!
True! Let’s hope things turn out all right in the end…
Hope. 🫡
On these wages?
Ehhhh, the majority of humans are pretty awful at their jobs. AI is worse than any competent human who gives a shit, but in modern office culture that’s more rare than it ought to be.
I really want to downvote you, but yes, if you pay people peanuts and treat them like shit, they don’t give you their best.
AI doesn’t have that problem so it’s great for the kind of soulless corpo who doesn’t value quality.