With respect to Simon, whose writing I've usually agreed with in the past and whose insights I've liked: this is a bad take that overlooks the extent to which corporations are imposing the use of AI on employees, and in particular ICs, who make up a majority of the AI-using workforce by headcount.

Many of us are either openly having our performance reviews tied to AI use, especially at larger enterprises. Whether that's measured by sheer token count or just "how many of your tasks are you using AI for these days" (combined with the implication that question carries at many orgs which are heavily invested in AI).

▲

simonw 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Are you saying that Anthropic's huge leaps in revenue are caused by stupid company policies and token leaderboards, and the moment companies stop imposing AI on their employees revenue will drop to a point where Anthropic are unlikely to be profitable?

I don't think that's the case. I think the token leaderboard thing (which is clearly ridiculous) affects a tiny portion of companies and is already going out of fashion.

	▲	_verandaguy 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I'm saying that the truth lies somewhere in between, and that Anthropic's current revenue is being, in part, propped up artificially. We're also in a place where a lot of the usage guidance around these tools is still nascent. People are cowboying a lot of stuff, even as larger companies start to organize AI policy/safety/responsible use working groups to try and policy around the shortfalls of the technology. IMO: if this technology persists, and if we figure out a way to use it in a broadly safe way, the value proposition will probably trend down rather than up, at least on the code generation front. As a research tool, it shows some promise, though I still find the ethics of the technology disgusting.