How many 1+ hour videos of someone building with AI tools have you sought out and watched? Those definitely exist, it sounds like you didn't go seeking them out or watch them because even with 7 less hours you'd better understand where they add value enough to believe they can help with challenging projects.

So why should anybody produce an 8 hour video for you when you wouldn't watch it? Let's be real. You would not watch that video.

In my opinion most of the people who refuse to believe AI can help them while work with software are just incurious/archetypical late adopters.

If you've ever interacted with these kinds of users, even though they might ask for specs/more resources/more demos and case studies or maturity or whatever, you know that really they are just change-resistant and will probably continue to be as as long as they can get away with it being framed as skepticism rather than simply being out of touch.

I don't mean that in a moralizing sense btw - I think it is a natural part of aging and gaining experience, shifting priorities, being burned too many times. A lot of business owners 30 years ago probably truly didn't need to "learn that email thing", because learning it would have required more of a time investment than it would yield, due to being later in their career with less time for it to payoff, and having already built skills/habits/processes around physical mail that would become obsolete with virtual mail. But a lot of them did end up learning that email thing 5, 10, whatever years later when the benefits were more obvious and the rest of the world had already reoriented itself around email. Even if they still didn't want to, they'd risk looking like a fossil/"too old" to adapt to changes in the workplace if they didn't just do it.

That's why you're seeing so many directors/middle managers doing all these though leader posts about AI recently. Lots of these guys 1-2 years ago were either saying AI is spicy autocomplete or "our OKR this quarter is to Do AI Things". Now they can't get away with phoning it in anymore and need to prove to their boss that they are capable of understanding and using AI, the same way they had to prove that they understood cloud by writing about kubernetes or microservices or whatever 5-10 years ago.

> In my opinion most of the people who refuse to believe AI can help them while work with software are just incurious/archetypical late adopters.

The biggest blocker I see to having AI help us be more productive is that it transforms how the day to day operations work.

Right now there is some balance in the pipeline of receiving change requests/enhancements, documenting them, estimating implementation time, analyzing cost and benefits, breaking out the feature into discrete stories, having the teams review the stories and 'vote' on a point sizing, planning on when each feature should be completed given the teams current capacity and committing to the releases (PI Planning), and then actually implementing the changes being requested.

However if I can take a code base and enter in a high level feature request from the stakeholders and then hold hands with Kiro to produce a functioning implementation in a day, then the majority of those steps above are just wasting time. Spending a few hundred man-hours to prepare for work that takes a few hundred man-hours might be reasonable, but doing that same prep work for a task that takes 8 man-hours isn't.

And we can't shift to that faster workflow without significant changes to entire software pipeline. The entire PMO team dedicated to reporting when things will be done shifts if that 'thing' is done before the report to the PMO lead is finished being created. Or we need significantly more resources dedicated to planning enhancements so that we could have an actual backlog of work for the developers. But my company appears to neither be interested in shrinking the PMO team nor in expanding the intake staff.

It could be really beneficial for Anthropic to showcase how they use their own product; since they're developers already, they're probably dogfooding their product, and the effort required should be minimal.

- A lot of skeptics have complained that AI companies aren't specific about how they use their products, and this would be a great example of specificity.

- It could serve as a tutorial for people who are unfamiliar with coding agents.

- The video might not convince people who have already made up their minds, but at least you could point to it as a primary source of information.

> How many 1+ hour videos of someone building with AI tools have you sought out and watched?

A lot, they've mostly all been advertising trite and completely useless.

I don't want a demonstration of what a jet-powered hammer is by the sales person or how to oil it, or mindless fluff about how much time it will save me hammering things. I want to see a journeyman use a jet-powered hammer to build a log cabin.

I am personally not seeing this magic utopia. No one wants to show me it, they just want to talk about how better it is.

The honest answer is that I would probably ask AI to analyze the video for me, and that it would probably do a pretty good job.