Ed's argument for why "AI is slowing down" rests on company spending caps, in particular the Uber $1,500/engineer/tool cap.

I interpret the exact same evidence in the opposite direction. A year ago the idea that a company would spend $1,500/month/employee on AI tooling felt absurd, what could people possible want to do with AI that would cost that much?

Then coding agents (and, increasingly, general purpose agents) happened and suddenly companies are having to set limits because otherwise the demand from their employees is too high.

The TAM of these AI companies just leapt up to $1,500/knowledge-worker/month, how is that "slowing down"?

▲

gdcbe 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Maybe in USA in big tech where companies give absurd wages to engineers anyway in some states, that might be acceptable. But to make their ROI they need that (and more) to be spend world wide... no way that is gonna be a budget that is gonna fly in the long term...

Companies love to cut costs, and just like they axe employee numbers at will, they will just as well make that kind of budget quickly dissapear the moment they realize they can go a different path for same or better value... Or simply because share holder short-term value demands it...

▲

simonw 5 hours ago | parent [-]

The Uber $1,500/engineer/month thing is just the first signal we have had of the price companies may be willing to accept. This price will clearly vary wildly across professions, industries and geographies.

I think it's a poor number to build an "AI is slowing down" narrative around.

▲

B56b 4 hours ago | parent [-]

The problem is that $1500/engineer/month would be a pretty modest amount of demand for labs. OpenAI/Anthropic are basing their $1T valuations on the explosive uncapped growth of unlimited agentic token spending. On so many levels of the industry this growth is now priced in. You don't think so?

	▲	simonw 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I don't have a particularly great answer to that question - I'm not enough of a financial analysis to have confidence in an opinion. I do however think that shouting "look, Uber capped pricing at $1500/engineer/month hence AI is slowing down" is a questionable position to take.
	▲	famouswaffles 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		>OpenAI/Anthropic are basing their $1T valuations on the explosive uncapped growth of unlimited agentic token spending. No they're not. In reality, actual 'explosive uncapped growth of unlimited agentic token spending' will result in valuations several times more than a 'mere' $1T.

▲

remich 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It's also not $1,500 per month per engineer. It's that per month per engineer per tool. Which means it could easily be at least $3,000 (Claude Code and Cursor) or $4,500 if Codex was also an option on top of those two.

And as you have written on your blog it's a soft cap that can be exceeded with justification.