I used to think this was a sign that AI code isn't really useful, but I've changed my tune (also I believe these numbers have changed in the last few months).

As an example: One of my most promising projects I was discussing with a friend and we realized together we could potentially use these tools to build a two person agency with no need to hire anyone ever. If this were to work, could theoretically make nice revenue and it shouldn't show up in any metric anywhere.

Additionally I've heard of countless teams cancelling their contracts with outsourced engineers because cheap but bad coders in India are worse that an LLM and still cost more. I'm not sure if there's a number around this activity, but again, these type of changes don't show up in the usual places.

My current belief is not that AI will replace traditional software engineering it will replace a good chunk of the entire model of software.

▲

HWR_14 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> If this were to work, could theoretically make nice revenue and it shouldn't show up in any metric anywhere.

Except production GDP, the standard measure of economic activity.

	▲	FrojoS 7 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Correct me, but if two people create a SAAS that can replace a 50 people SAAS, compete on price and the competitor is forced out of the market, wouldn’t this show up as an reduction in GDP? Efficiency (GDP/time_worked) should be up though, and AFAIK it isn’t.

▲

bryanrasmussen 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>One of my most promising projects I was discussing with a friend and we realized together we could potentially use these tools to build a two person agency with no need to hire anyone ever. If this were to work, could theoretically make nice revenue and it shouldn't show up in any metric anywhere.

potentially...if this were to work...theoretically

shouldn't show up? I would worry that something with so many variables wouldn't show up.

▲

sillyfluke 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

>One of my most promising projects I was discussing with a friend and we realized together we could potentially use these tools to build a two person agency with no need to hire anyone ever...My current belief is not that AI will replace traditional software engineering it will replace a good chunk of the entire model of software

You're not following your last line to its logical conclusion regarding your own prospects: no one is going to buy the vibeslop your two person agency is selling because they'd rather create and maintain their own vibeslop instead of dealing with yours.

If you follow some of your thoughts to their logical conclusion you'll realize the parent is right: there will be limited productivity that ends up fueling the economy when nobody is buying each other's vibeslop.

▲

crystal_revenge 6 hours ago | parent [-]

We're not selling vibe slop, the "vibe slop" tools which work for one person enable of automation of tasks for the services we sell. Whether or not we use AI behind the scenes is entirely irrelevant to the service we're providing other than that it allows our margins to be higher and our speed of implementation to be faster.

I absolutely agree that it's not logical to think "oh we'll sell our AI stuff", that's the old model (which is just a variation on SaaS). I suspect a lot of HNers can't imagine a "product" that isn't code, but that's not at all what I'm describing.

The products that most people on HN have traditionally built are used by other companies to make money by allowing those processes to be scaled. AI, in many new cases, eliminates the need for a 'software' middle man. The case I'm describing is "I know how to make money doing X if only I could scale it up with out hiring people" and my offering is "I can scale it up without hiring people".

This is increasingly where I think the future of work is headed, and it's more than fine if you aren't convinced.

	▲	halfcat 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> it allows our margins to be higher and our speed of implementation to be faster Faster than what? You will be faster than your previous self, just like all of your competitors. Where’s the net gain here? Even if you somehow managed to capture more value for yourself, you’ve stopped providing value to 5-10x that many employees who are no longer employed. When costs approach zero on a large scale, margins do not increase. Low costs = you’re not paying anyone = your competitors aren’t paying anyone = your customers no longer have money = your revenue follows your costs straight to zero. Companies that provide physical services can’t scale without hiring. A one-man “crew” isn’t putting a roof on a data center. I want to be wrong. Tell me why you think any of this is wrong.