> The economics is spending a few hundred bucks on software for an IC you're already paying over ten grand a month

Let's be fair here, the endgame is not "a few hundred bucks a month." Not for how much money has been invested. How much extra you have to spend to make developers how much more productive, and will companies go along with it is the trillion dollar question.

▲

koliber 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

A long time ago a vast majority of people on earth were farmers. They used relatively simple tools like scathes.

Over a few centuries better tools and technology made it so that <5% of the population in rich countries are farmers. They use tools like million dollar harvesters.

	▲	legulere 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		It's not the 20x efficiency of harvesting technology compared to what agrarian societies that make them make sense. It's the productivity of the other 95% of the population that makes their labor cost so high that such expensive machines make economic sense.

▲

hparadiz 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

You know I can just lookup the costs per seat right? It's not that much and not everyone is a heavy user at an org. And for code the costs are falling per compute cycle.

▲

xienze 2 days ago | parent [-]

First, the key phrase here is "end game." Whatever you're looking at now isn't where prices will be in short order.

Second, it seems a hard to believe that hundreds of billions of dollars would be spent and untold numbers of data centers would be built just to gain a measly couple hundred dollars per seat.

	▲	fragmede a day ago \| parent [-]
		But it's a lot of seats. If you get 1 billion people to pay $20/month, that's $20 billion. Multiply that by 10 years and you have $200 billion.