- Tell your employees to use AI without enough training.
- Tell them to keep doing it without enough money.
- Profit!
Ironic
I’ll admit I’m experiencing a degree of pleasure in thinking about how nervous Anthropic and OpenAI must be with their IPOs supposedly coming up.
They’re already billionaires many times over. Hard to feel nervous with that kind of wealth in your pocket
Based on the current valuations of their companies. They will likely remain 0.1%ers, but it will still hurt.
Place your bets
Place your bets
If they weren’t needlessly nervous (by that I mean paranoid), they would not be in that position. Whatever their wealth, those people cannot feel safe.
Idk about that. Musk and Zuck seem like very careless people.
They gotta pull Google and get into the advertising game. They are sitting on a gold mine of private data and I’m sure they know it.
OpenAI already explicitly postponed their IPO somehow hoping for a better climate to IPO in…
A certainly… optimistic expectation.
You should not try to make sense of a decision they probably used chatGPT to make. It’s bad for your metal health
NASDAQ just crested a new high this month, before stumbling last week.
If the death of the tech industry is on the horizon, I can’t see it.
DJIA crested a new high September 3rd 1929 before stumbling 3% the next week.
If death of the market was on the horizon, they couldn’t see it.
The slide being attributable to some "I told you so"s coming to pass may bode ill for the bigger "told you so"s that come due in a few months.
But the market doesn’t act rationally, both going up and going down, so who knows.
DJIA crested a new high September 3rd 1929 before stumbling 3% the next week.
And over a century later, what has become of it?
If someone bought $100 of stock in 1929, how much would it be worth today?
$100 of Krueger and Toll? $0
$100 of the entire DJIA on September 3, 1929 adjusted annually: $13,633
If you’d invested in January of 1929: $16,913
If you’d invested in January of 1920: $72,275
January of 1930: $31,708
It’s never gone to $0
I’d love more of the msm to pick up these articles.
I need to convince my family this current state of AI is just smoke, mirrors and debt, but i need a normie-credible source to anchor it.
Does anyone know of one? Guardian would do.
they cut our copilot budget to 19€ per person (you can request more. but of course it’s a hassle)
they still insist AI the future and more AI is better. they are just now shifting the blame to employees: “you need to think more about how you use it”, “you cannot just throw tokens at a problem”, etc
two months ago I got an email from a manager asking me why my AI spending was so low.
Wait, we’re not tokenmaxing anymore? So when the AI salesman said to make a leaderboard of people spening the hardest, it was to line their own pockets with cash? Huh. Color me surprised.
So next, you’ll tell me that it costs more to have an LLM produce the same quality of code as a senior developer.
Can’t wait to see this exact headline another 50 times but none of the companies in question facing any consequences for their actions, profit driven society is so fucking stupid.
The consequence is that they waste money and time. Which actually matters for businesses strapped for money or time. But most of the megacorps are swimming in money and in time. They waste those all the time even without the AI because the upper management accepts kickbacks to contract with the worst (but also the bribiest) contractors. And mid management, and everyone else, put their own personal interests ahead of the company’s. Now that the AI hype is here, they have a new tool to waste time and money with, but nothing has fundamentally changed. Big business is a lumbering inefficient bureaucracy by its nature.
At our company, 12 months ago they said everyone wasn’t using enough AI. They even made a leaderboard to see who was using the most tokens in the business and encouraged more and more.
A couple of months ago, everyone’s AI spend was restricted to $100/month without warning. Entire workflows broken overnight because people had built theirs around Claude skills that used stupid amounts of tokens.
Now they’re starting layoffs. Go figure.
now they are laying of staff? What, did they blow their whole budget out?
They were burning over $250k every single day. So yeah, gotta pay the reaper I guess.
I tried AI-everything (apart from code review of course). But it’s just too hard. Letting the AI do bigger things results in subtle, hard to find, but devastating design fails and errors. It’s fractal. No matter what layer I look at, it’s always sort-of working but also bugged in subtle and sometimes hard-to-fix ways.
So I don’t do that. Instead I use the AI as an assistant while I still do most of the actual work. I downgraded my account too because I never reached the limits for a while.Ding ding ding. It’s fucking GREAT for eliminating the menial bullshit like scaffolding, data cleanup, sifting through overly verbose documentation… Anything that requires abstract thought still needs to be done by a human.
I’m in a similar situation. My workplace has been heavily pushing implanting AI tools into our daily workload, but I’ve struggled to find a more meaningful use beyond a technical search engine: eg. How can I calculate x in the most resource efficient way?
My IDE told me that there is a new version of some library which fixes security bugs. I asked the AI what will break if I update. It actually found out that the new version requires a license key which has to be updated yearly even for the free use case. So I had it refactor the single use of that library to use another library instead. I then polished the refactored code myself a bit.
When I am done with something, I ask the AI what it thinks about the changes. It then tells me where I violated the style guide and sometimes it finds silly bugs I somehow missed. In rare cases it also finds serious stuff. the code definitely never got worse by having the AI look over it. Btw, looking at it doesn’t mean changing it. I had to tell it to save in its memory files that it should only change anything when explicitly asked to.
When I am not sure why something is like it is, I ask the AI. It then comes up with one or more potential explanations and often I then remember what was actually the reasoning if it’s my own code or the code becomes somewhat understandable when it’s written by someone else.
When some behavior looks like it should be impossible, I ask the AI how it’s possible, and it usually tells me the actual reason or gets close enough to make it much easier for me to find it.
When I’m unsure how to implement something, I discuss some options with the AI. It’s reasoning isn’t always sound. But sometimes the internal dialog is just not enough and chatting with AI works surprisingly well for me.
Just treat it like an extremely knowledgeable college with a serious psychedelics addiction. Can’t let it do stuff unattended. But when it isn’t hallucinating, it is pretty capable. Also, it doesn’t care how much you ask it. In general, every easy to explain task with easy to verify results and low damage on failure can be done by AI. But it is often faster to just do something yourself than explain it to the AI and polish the result.
that it should only change anything when explicitly asked to.
Does that work?
Also not the person you responded to but in my experience, yes. I don’t tell it to “save it in its memory files” because I don’t think that’s a thing, but including “do not actually edit any files, only propose changes” somewhere in the initial prompt of a conversation has worked well for me.
Not the person you responded to, but yeah, it seems to in my case.
I’m one of those people that don’t exist, in that any AI code I generate is reviewed prior to running. I’ve been forced to use fucking copilot to check in the source I have to a new company repository, and so far diffing the code checked into source control is unchanged, but it seems to be good about updating the header to the standard in supposed to be using. I’m also having it do basic reviews of the code and only updating the files as I see fit.
January: We’re going AI native, please use AI as much as possible.
March: Everyone needs to attend workshops on how to maximize AI productivity.
July: Some models are only available for special (properly justified) cases. Speak to your manager. Turns out that some people did everything (even commits) with top cost models.
August: Ok, we’re setting some limits on token usage, due to some people spending 1000% over the average.
September: we are creating additional frameworks and limits to AI use.
It took a bit of time for the actual AI cost/benefit to reach the top management and put some hard numbers in contrast with the hype machine, but it’s happening.
Keep spending that shit left and right!
My company is at the July stage. Who knew giving people unrestricted access to Claude enterpise with no training would blow through budgets in days
Still in March over here. My management is pushing hard for us to start doing shit in copilot, and I’m humoring them, but I’m looking at current news with a very Ralph Wiggum “I’m in danger” mindset
Everyone who was paying attention even a little bit has known this would be the trajectory from the beginning. And we haven’t even gotten to the crazy price hikes per token that are coming.
And we haven’t even gotten to the crazy price hikes per token that are coming.
Why do you think that?
IMHO, API prices are likely to drop over time as we scale up and efficiencies are found, combined with general pricing pressure from the competition… SOTA models will continue to have SOTA prices, of course, but reasonable priced distilled and open weights models are already common.
A consequence of API prices dropping is that “heavily discounted” consumer plans will also adjust and won’t be so generous relative to API prices.
IMHO, API prices are likely to drop over time as we scale up and efficiencies are found, combined with general pricing pressure from the competition… SOTA models will continue to have SOTA prices, of course, but reasonable priced distilled and open weights models are already common.
Some of this seems like wishful thinking to me.
“as we scale up” We already have large data centers, and, if anything, “scaling up” is just driving up expenses for debt and hardware. The real problem with AI, relative to the internet boom, is that the more you use it, the more expensive it is. The economies of scale to be taken advantage of are minimal.
I do think price of compute will come down, but exactly because people will be running their own open source models on their own hardware instead of Sam Altman to stack GPUs in a warehouse, but it will still be too expensive and inaccurate.
And we’re still headed for a financial cliff in this scenario.
Of course they want to turn the corner and ideally keep all their infra, but they might need to restructure their debts if/when the creditors come knocking.
BUT: they have a money printing machine with inference… Enterprise is where most of the money is made, as they pay (closer to) API prices… consumer & small business plans are heavily discounted in comparison, with mostly underutilized use-it-or-lose it plans. They’d be stupid if they were making an opex loss on inference.
As for why API prices are dropping? Competition is a bitch… but they seem willing and able to play the game for now.
If we’re talking about the survivability of AI as a technology, I agree.
If you’re talking about the viability of the hyperscaling business model, I think we are looking at wildly different sets of information.
Like a fraction of a percent of people will run their own models. It won’t influence price. Remember that coders/tech people are only a minority of users.
Oh, I see. I was mistaken. I thought tech companies were OpenAI’s major customers, and they certainly could make their own data centers for internal work, and that coders–that minority of users–were the only ones likely to pay full price for tokens, the rest of us wouldn´t be willing to pay full fare for a machine that is right most of the time sort of. Thanks for setting me straight on that.
Some large companies do it … but I think you greatly overestimate the willingness of large enterprises to build and maintain their own infra. Once a company has lost the competency (and many have), it’s hard to get it back. There are always pockets of people with the right skillset in a large org, but they mostly don’t want to do DC work anymore. Team/personal servers and beefy laptops, otoh…
Because these companies started selling at a loss from the start to get people hooked. Neither Claude nor OpenAI are turning a profit right now.
They were supposed to do their IPO and have positive cash flow already. Time is running out before investors are getting antsy and there’s no more money available for scaling up.
They gobbled up the easy money… now they have to work harder for more, and yeah, they may have to slow down a bit and embrace fiscal responsibility… I expect to see restructuring of debts along the way, but I’d be very surprised to see any of the major US based players implode.
Both Anthropic & OpenAI have debt repayments coming up in 2027 that:
- cannot be restructured
- cannot be postponed
- they absolutely cannot pay back without even more VC money, and that faucet is being cut off right now.
I feel like we’re co-workers, with how perfectly that timeline matched the day-job’s progression.
We’re at “did you take the seminar on looping that uses tokens like a firehouse so you can use less tokens? Why are you using too little (/not enough) tokens, and why is it not magically 10x-ing all of your (fucking ansible) config?” Or some shit.
Do we work at the same company??
I think this was the standard management reaction across all the companies that embraced AI as if it was the second coming of Jesus Christ.
C-Suit are herd animals. Same schools, same country clubs, same conference. They all are formed the same. And they don’t take advise from people who earn a few orders of magnitude less.
Fortunately, the people above them care about numbers, and these don’t add up.
They thought it was their ticket to fire everybody, and the more they made you use it the sooner they could fire you.
Soon, the guys upstairs will realise that the real savings are in replacing the middle management with agents, not replacing the workers. Fingers crossed.
That will just become a different kind of hell
I don’t doubt that for a second, my friend.
I was a PM at a major now-hyperscaler and one of the engineers on my team was pretty vocal about PM not contributing.
He ended up leaving for a team that didn’t have one. A few years later I happened to be in his new building, he saw me, and came up with this huge grin on his face, “oh wow are you joining our team?”
You always hate the chick writing the specs until you don’t have one any more. 😂
Management spent two years demanding everyone use AI, then discovered everyone was using AI. Now they’re shocked the office is a conveyor belt of hallucinated PowerPoints reviewed by other bots. The real productivity breakthrough will be executives learning that buying subscriptions isn’t a business strategy.
Yeah, turns out the executive class, the would-be nobility, are incompetent idiots by their own standards, and are primarily driven by their own malignant sociopathic narcissism, not any of the stories they tell about themselves.
If you want competent executives, they’d need an actually effective selection pressure that punishes incompetence and rewards competence… but they already destroyed that.
So, either we, or somebody, builds some mechanism or system that does that… or they all preen themselves rigourously while steering the ship directly into an iceberg, with all of us onboard.
They will genuienly not understand why we hate them for killing us all.
I just wish my company would start hiring again. I have been using the AI out of necessity, because we are short-staffed in certain areas. I’ve asked several times, directly, how much my AI use is costing and nobody is in a position to know. It’s certainly helped in some areas but I want to build a case that hiring a college grad or two can help more…
Being short staffed is the whole point. They believe (where they are right or wrong) AI will replace large number employees. For example in my company where that are pushing vibe coding, my boss said that now they believe that the large projects need less people.
If you use AI and still have to work overtime you are your own problem. As long as you deliver why would they change anything? Don’t deliver. It is not worth sacrificing your health for someone’s else’s profits. You have only one life.
I see people who embraced vibe coding still working overtime and over weekends, more than before.
When the clock strikes 5:30 we usually tell each other to get the fuck out the office. Ensure no one ever accidentally does any unpaid overtime.
deleted by creator
Careful they might just hire two AI using interns to replace you. Maybe bad mouth how much the AI is making mistakes and get them to make you stop using it and then ask for help when production slows.
This just in, Management are complete morons. Film at 11.
Trend chasing upper class idiots
This. You’d almost think people are dumb enough to blame bad management decisions on software.
Ernst and Young say 36% of companies using AI have experienced catastrophic incidents.
Hopefully some of them go bankrupt. That would be a stellar way to get rid of some bad management.
is that guy yawning
I think he’s waiting for someone to insert a penis into his mouth
Alright, I’ll do it…
Careful… lots of teeth showing
Someone sent me what was clearly an AI generated doc. I read it, realized it was all AI, had my AI summarize it and ended up with nothing that brought new thinking
What a loop…
This is the thing that drives me absolutely nuts with how most people use LLMs at work. I’m fully capable of asking the LLM to create slop, I need others to actually check and ensure their documentation is useful and correct before communicating it with others.
Oh look, the thing we all knew was gonna happen is happening.
