| ▲ | hirako2000 a day ago |
| Tulips sales also skyrocketed. Seriously, what value are tokens providing other than justifying layoffs. Concretely. Today. Not in the speculating scenario that cardiologist could be replaced with models. We see this new trend of agentic coding, again a promise software will be written that way going forward, despite the number of fiasco already experienced when trusting a model turned bad. The use case may provide value, but right now all it does is fullfil the push for token consumption all these AI leaders are advocating for. |
|
| ▲ | sempron64 a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| It's ridiculous to call this tulips, in the sense of a speculative asset whose price depends on resale. A more similar recent example is the dotcom boom and bust based on building internet infrastructure, or the 2008 crash which was based on cyclical infrastructure overinvestment. These crashes were characterized by demand growth not keeping up with investment because the target markets were tapped out. Not clear when we'll get there with AI. The consumer market seems saturated on chatbots but we're not even close to saturated for b2b or self driving for example. And this discounts other new technological offerings which may unlock larger consumer markets (products where people are willing to pay $100 a month instead of 10 or 20) All that said the dotcom boom is extremely analogous and that crash was quite bad. |
| |
| ▲ | skeeter2020 a day ago | parent [-] | | dotcom was maybe 100B a year focused on the US and mostly VCs. AI is perhaps 250B global VC (with more than half of ALL VCs concentrated in one sector) and another 800B+ from non-VC. These numbers are basically a guess but structurally we are set up for something much, much worse. | | |
| ▲ | infecto a day ago | parent [-] | | But unlike the dot com boom, demand for tokens has not let up and there is increasing demand. I don’t know where it falls, certainly companies don’t get or right and they either over or under build. With the current demand rate changes it’s hard to understand why you would stop building today. | | |
| ▲ | hirako2000 a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Demands for tokens exists yes. On one side you have huge demand for the infinitely subsidized tokens so that people can post a "unique" illustration when posting on social media, along with the text itself even. On the other end we have professionals happy to pay a subscription for heavier use, to build something in the hope to sell it. I figured I don't believe in value when my dad explained to me his mate fired his team once he realised he could just pay 20 bucks for his Gemini account and run his business. I asked, do you call this value add? He said it must be, since he can produce the same output with no staff. There is a confusion between profiting from a circumstance and value creation. You create value if, say, you cure a disease. That it takes you an army of staff or extract maximum profit from it is just a feasibility formula. That you make the cure more affordable is value creation. That you cure the same disease but increase your profit doesn't create any value, except to yourself, for a while | | |
| ▲ | Aperocky a day ago | parent | next [-] | | > I figured I don't believe in value Maybe you don't, but it's fairly obvious that a lot of things are changing and things are moving. Maybe your dad's mate didn't have to expand on his business, good for him. Other business are expanding because they now can. Will the positive overweigh the negative? Not necessarily, but to go "it's tulip" is the kind of argument so devoid of nuance that we shouldn't be discussing so on HN. The overwhelming demand for token would not coming from people wanting a unique illustration - it would be from professional usage. In fact, I'm not even sure who is subsidized. The $20 subscription surely isn't being used fully across all members of that subscription. | | | |
| ▲ | arbitrary_name a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
| |
| ▲ | fsloth a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yeah, this is the difference. 2000's tech bubble was caused among other things over-investment to infrastructure and technology that had no users yet. Totally different setup. Does not mean AI boom will not turn to bust, but weak analogues generally don't help with understanding complex systems. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | matheusmoreira a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Seriously, what value are tokens providing other than justifying layoffs. Concretely. Today. Claude helped me implement a ridiculous amount of features in my programming language. It's helped me migrate the heap to an easily moveable index-based object space. It's helped me implement generators. It's helped me implement a new memory allocator. It's helped me fix a ridiculous amounts of bugs and make a huge number of small improvements everywhere. Its ability to provide me repository wide code review was a game changer for a solo developer like me. And it's doing so much more than that. I got more things done in the past few weeks than previous months even though I'm evaluating, learning, understanding and rewriting the AI output. It's actually addictive to build things with Claude. The usage limits are starting to make me anxious, just like withdrawal syndrome. I applied for their open source max subscription program even though I'm too small for it because who knows, I might get in anyway and it costs nothing. AI is quite literally a world changing technology. I hope the open models keep steadily progressing and that hardware remains available to all so we can run our own models on our own computers one day. |
| |
| ▲ | Aperocky a day ago | parent [-] | | Just pay for it, think of it like college tuition. Just far cheaper (if you are in USA) and probably more useful in terms of job prospects. | | |
| ▲ | matheusmoreira a day ago | parent [-] | | I am paying for it. I subscribed to the Pro plan about two weeks ago. The Max plan is a significant expense I can't justify. I straight up cannot afford the API prices as an individual. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | rhaen a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Tulip futures skyrocketed, it was economic speculation on a useless asset, not supply and demand. Crypto is the analogy, not AI. Given that the major AI labs other than GDM are private, this is even more true. Agentic coding absolutely blew up from demand, users are not being tricked into paying $200 a month, and they’re not complaining about hitting rate limits because it’s useless. |
| |
| ▲ | aurareturn a day ago | parent [-] | | users are not being tricked into paying $200 a month
I can't believe people actually believe that people and companies are tricked into paying for tokens. My $20 Codex subscription is so useful, I can easily see myself paying $200 for it.This belief is so common amongst AI collapse people online. I'm guessing these people have only used free ChatGPT or worse, they use Windows and get Copilot shoved down their throats? Meanwhile, I'm flying around with a $20 Codex subscription doing everything from writing code, analyzing stocks, coming up with ideas, etc. | | |
| ▲ | fsloth a day ago | parent | next [-] | | I'm paying $20 for Codex and $90 for the Claude Max plan. They are a "pry from my cold dead fingers" product for me. IMO if someone tried this tech last time 6 months ago, or their only exposure is eg. via MS copilot, they do have a rational reason for skepticism. No technology of this complexity has improved this rapidly in my memory (well, ok, we had the CPU speed races from 90's to early 2000's). | | |
| ▲ | BirAdam a day ago | parent | next [-] | | The CPU speed race might be the most apt comparison I've yet heard. From the 80486 to AMD Athlon64 X2 and much of that progress was enabled by better EDA being run on the more powerful CPUs being made with each improvement. Now, we have better models helping to create even better models. | |
| ▲ | tartoran a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Would you still pay if prices were to increase,say $1500-2000 monthly? | | |
| ▲ | aurareturn a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Probably. I assume the value would drastically increase. Companies will definitely continue to pay for it. It's irreplaceable now. | | |
| ▲ | tartoran a day ago | parent [-] | | How about if they plateau but prices skyrocket? Most companies would pay but if you're not working for a company that does pay for it, what's the line beyhond which you'd think twice about paying for it yourself? 500? 1000? 1500? | | |
| ▲ | aurareturn a day ago | parent [-] | | Why would price skyrocket? Let's say they have already plateau. But hardware continues to get better, right? So tokens should go down in price, not up. Since they're already 50%+ on inference today, better hardware would allow them to generate more tokens for less money. I would pay $500 to start, build stuff with it, then keep going up the tiers as the stuff I'm building makes money. |
|
| |
| ▲ | fsloth a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Privately no. Professionally yes. |
|
| |
| ▲ | aiedwardyi a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] |
|
|
|
| ▲ | gruez a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| >Seriously, what value are tokens providing other than justifying layoffs. Concretely. Today. It's adding tests for me and doing medium complexity refactors that I'd otherwise have to spend hours on |
| |
| ▲ | michaelcampbell a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Same, and constructing at least drafts of huge documents that I can iteratively fine-tune that have (at least last week) saved me 10's of hours. And based on reality (code) rather than my feelz of what I vaguely remember the code to have been doing in some long past. | |
| ▲ | datsci_est_2015 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | These example put in the category of “best IDE ever created, by a wide margin” - but not “replacement for the programming workforce”. | |
| ▲ | aiedwardyi a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] |
|
|
| ▲ | infecto a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I know there is a large force on HN that want to deny the value of tokens and I know it’s anecdotal but the writing is on the wall. If it’s not valuable to your workflow today it will be soon. I already have tests being written, automated hooks into bugs where an initial PR gets generated with a potential fix. It’s far from perfect but junior engineers are far less productive. |
| |
| ▲ | rileymichael a day ago | parent [-] | | > there is a large force on HN that want to deny the value of tokens there is an even larger force on HN that financially _needs_ the value of tokens to be inflated (so much so that bots have overwhelmed the site) | | |
| ▲ | infecto a day ago | parent | next [-] | | That’s not me. I am simply an engineer who gets a ton of value out of these tools. | |
| ▲ | therealdrag0 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Really? Do you think there are more bots and employees of AI stakeholder companies than there are vanilla engineers on the site? | | |
| ▲ | rileymichael a day ago | parent [-] | | by far. at this point there are very few tech companies without exposure to AI |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | jdmoreira a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| are you seriously comparing AI to tulips? I don't even know what to say. Even if you are very bearish about the technology certainly you can't be this detached from base reality. Yet here we are |
|
| ▲ | somewhatjustin a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Seriously, what value are tokens providing other than justifying layoffs. Coding, writing, summarizing, translating, data analysis, customer support, test generation. |
|
| ▲ | senordevnyc 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| In the last eight months, my solo SaaS has gone from $0 to $325k ARR, and growth is accelerating. I run tens of billions of tokens per month through automated pipelines for the product itself (which replaces an ultra niche human-driven process in a very non-technical industry), plus probably low billions more per month for coding, systems operation and management, data analysis, etc. And I feel like I'm just barely scratching the surface of what today's models are capable of. |
|
| ▲ | vekker a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Seriously, what value are tokens providing other than justifying layoffs Like the OP said, it's incredible how polarizing this debate is. When I read comments like yours, I feel like a significant part of the global workforce in IT must be living on another planet? Or they never really used Claude Code, Codex, OpenCode, ... intensively before because of company policies? I legitimately am at least 10x more productive than a year ago, and I can prove it in number of commits and finished monetizable features developed per day. Obviously my workflows still very much require an active, constantly context-switching human-in-the-loop, but to me there's absolutely no question both output volume & quality have skyrocketed. |
| |
| ▲ | classified a day ago | parent | next [-] | | > 10x more productive That claim is totally worthless without you providing concrete information how you measured that. | | |
| ▲ | hirako2000 a day ago | parent | next [-] | | And that's my point about value. That engineers can spit out far more code, or that they don't have to think much is surely precious convenience. Value add so far lacks evidence. Layoffs. It justifies them to the public. I'm not certain it grants them as it contradicts a principle of enterprise: scale, as much as you possibly can. If tokens provided value today, we would be hiring more engineers to review their output and put things together. | |
| ▲ | vekker a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | I literally wrote how I measure this in the post you are replying to: #commits which is admittedly a worthless proxy for productivity, so, more importantly, number of finished production-ready features delivered. That number is at least tenfold of what it was before, simply because I can run a lot of gruntwork in parallel now without wasting brainpower and focus on that stuff. |
| |
| ▲ | Throaway1975123 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | I created 5 websites this year and am working on 3 prototype games. For free. Without any knowledge of coding beforehand. | | |
| ▲ | hirako2000 a day ago | parent [-] | | Value? There are millions of other wanna be engineers doing exactly the same, assuming demand will scale as much as the offer. What returns are you getting on those? Let me create 500 websites, deployed for free, I hand that over to you by end of day. Will you give me a cent per piece? If so, happy to do business with you. | | |
| ▲ | Throaway1975123 a day ago | parent [-] | | The value is obviously to the people who will use this to replace engineers. I would happily pay $200 a month for this. Luckily I dont need to, it's free. Literally every game and website that I would have had to pay someone else to make I can now make myself. There's no value in that? A year ago the best free LLM couldn't even give me a basic gridmap and collision. Now it can give me a full RCT style prototype & editor in 20 iterations. I can only imagine what improvements we will have NEXT year! | | |
| ▲ | hirako2000 a day ago | parent [-] | | > luckily I don't have to. It's free. Ponder that for a minute. There are over 2 million games, for Android alone. That you weren't making games before the advent of LLMs makes it cool for you to build, and at no cost. But people have been able to make games without them and already grew the market to saturation. If the outcome of LLMs is that we get more games, it won't imply that people will consume more games. Most games never get played anyway. | | |
| ▲ | Throaway199999 a day ago | parent [-] | | There's nothing to "ponder" as you so patronizingly put it, and your stats on gaming are self-evident. Op never said they're selling games. They said they're making their own games and websites for a fraction of the cost (even $0). That's amazing value. And it's just getting better. | | |
| ▲ | hirako2000 a day ago | parent [-] | | that $0 is meant to go on the side of the value add that justifies the sort of funding we are seeing? I didn't mean to patronize, sometimes self evidence isn't trivial to notice. | | |
| ▲ | Throaway199999 19 hours ago | parent [-] | | The funding is in anticipation of AI becoming so good that mistakes are only seen in the most complex output. In consumer applications, it's hard not to see that happening, given the exponential improvements of the past year. Whoever gets there first can capture the market. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | 3yr-i-frew-up a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [dead] |
|
| ▲ | Throaway1975123 a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Tulips had literally no economic value. LLM's do. |
| |
| ▲ | drakythe a day ago | parent [-] | | I say this as someone who has used them to boilerplate/scaffold a bit of code by this point: Economic Value of LLMs is debatable, if only because they're being too broadly applied. | | |
| ▲ | Throaway1975123 a day ago | parent [-] | | Debatable sure. Not 0. Tulips are 0. They add nothing to anyone's output.
LLM's are not. LLM's are not tulips. | | |
| ▲ | skeeter2020 a day ago | parent [-] | | This is changing the narative. Nobody really cares about tulips and some dumb throwaway comparison. Unless LLMs are worth an awful lot the math here does not make sense. That is both debatable and important. | | |
| ▲ | hirako2000 a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Since I brought up the tulips: People do care about Tulips. They do have value. So do LLMs.
How many people will remain willing to pay for them, and how much, is what we call speculation. | |
| ▲ | Throaway1975123 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | No it isn't changing the narrative. Tulip bulbs were a huge bubble based on speculation, completely. No one ever used a tulip to create a piece of software, or anything else. Their economic value was precisely 0. The whole thing was based on a bubble. LLM's may be IN a bubble, but they aren't tulips. |
|
|
|
|