| |
| ▲ | aurareturn 20 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | You can do a lot with just $20 Codex CLI subscription. Tokens are cheap compared to the $20k we're paying for a dev each month. | | |
| ▲ | ido 20 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Even the $200 claude max monthly subscription is peanuts compared to salary cost. | | |
| ▲ | monksy 19 hours ago | parent [-] | | Tell that to the company that I was just at that cut Intelij licenses as cost cutting measures. | | |
| ▲ | aurareturn 19 hours ago | parent [-] | | If they really want to cut cost, fire the worst dev on the team and use that money to give everyone a Codex subscription. | | |
| ▲ | KronisLV 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | Or better yet, fire the managers or bean counters that think decreasing everyone’s productivity is good for long term savings. I’m reminded of https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/08/09/the-joel-test-12-s... | | |
| ▲ | monksy 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Oh they laid people off so they could outsource more to India. Despite the managers reminding them, the cost is 1/3 the cost but 3x slower. American devs were 5x more productive overall. | |
| ▲ | mikkupikku 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Fire the middle management, HR, and etc that have been enthusiastically using AI to do their jobs for the past two or three years already. 90% of them can be replaced by an agent with access to an email account. | | |
| ▲ | thewebguyd 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | Tbh, if companies want to use AI to lay off and cut costs, that's exactly where they should be doing it, not engineering. How much bloat and bureaucracy bottleneck is sitting in middle management whose favorite past time is wasting everyone's time on meetings that could have been an email? HR? Not the execs, but the HR drones that do nothing but answer employee questions about policy, could have already been replaced with not even an AI, just an old school chatbot, a long time ago. Instead of cutting engineers, cut the non-tech jobs, flatten the structure. |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | hdgvhicv 19 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Amazes me that people pay 20k a month for a dev rather than paying 2k a month for one in Poland or 1k a month for one from India There’s obviously a benefit of paying higher rates for US programmers, but does that benefit change when llms are thrown into the mix | | |
| ▲ | apercu 15 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | My experience with outsourcing over 20+ years (Russia, Romania, India, South America) is that you just move money around when you do it. It takes more planning, more specification, more coordination, more QA. The quality is almost always worse, and remediation takes forever. So your BA, QA and PM time goes way up and absorbs any cost savings. YMMV. | | |
| ▲ | thewebguyd 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | Sounds like an LLM, tbh. Using Claude also takes more planning, more explicit specification, prompting, more manual review, more QA. |
| |
| ▲ | aurareturn 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Makes no sense because LLMs makes it far less worth it to outsource developers. | |
| ▲ | forgotlastlogin 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | 2k in Poland you say... |
| |
| ▲ | baq 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Exactly, the $20 codex is so good value it’s irresponsible to not give it to everyone. Claude code $20 is otoh pointless, the limits are good enough for 10 mins of work twice per business day. |
| |
| ▲ | onion2k 20 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Every business that's taking AI seriously is giving their team enterprise accounts to AI services. Otherwise you have no control over where your code, data, company info, etc is going. Someone deciding to drop a spreadsheet of customer data into their personal AI account to increase their productivity would be catastrophic for business, so you need rules. And rules means paying for enterprise AI tooling. | |
| ▲ | mikkupikku 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | "Bring your own tools" is not exactly novel in the workplace. Maybe so for office workers, but not more generally. Anyway, these particular tools are cheap enough that it hardly even matters who is expected to pay for them. The $20 a month tier in particular is a trivial expense, on par with businesses that expect their workers to wear steel toed shoes. Some may give workers a little stipend to buy those boots, some not. Either way, it doesn't really matter. | | |
| ▲ | thewebguyd 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | Just because it's not novel, doesn't mean it's right. I also don't agree with, for example, many mechanics being forced to buy their own tools (especially what little they get paid). I don't do tech outside of 9-5, so either my employer pays for it all, or I don't use it. Simple as that. Thankfully, they do pay for it, but I couldn't imagine working somewhere that says "You need to use AI" and then not providing it on their dime. Quite frankly it should be regulation that if a W2 employee needs something to perform their job duties, the employer must provide it. |
|
|
