Remix.run Logo
burningChrome a day ago

I can give you some additional anecdotal evidence to support your comment.

I work at a Fortune 200 company. At first, it was the Wild West. Need an LLM? You got it. Need to or want to build an army of agents? Done and done. We literally had everything at the tips of fingers for about 3 months. Teams were building their own internal tools, the team I work on canceled contracts with several software vendors because teams were building the same tools for what they thought was nothing.

Then they signed contracts with Anthropic and Google because I would assume they saw the token usage was through the roof. One month later? They completely cut off access to everybody for both Claude and Gemini. If you wanted access? Suddenly it was several forms, along with several approvals and a rock solid business case why you needed it. And before you got to the forms? You were added to a waiting list that was thousands of people long.

The entire company is now in damage control after trying to get the genie back in the bottle. I'm guessing someone saw how much we would be paying for the tokens we'd been using and decided to shut the party down so to speak.

wseqyrku 17 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You like to believe that these companies know what they're doing, they do not, I mean don't even try to find the logic behind their actions. They just follow the shiny things and then when it doesn't work, react by screwing up their employees. Their decisions age like milk on the countertop. After I got laid off a few month ago, I can't imagine myself working another 9 to 5. Because above all, it's an incredibly stupid way to spend your fleeting time here.

steveBK123 11 hours ago | parent [-]

Right Eventually you realize companies are just a bunch of people making it up as they go along

Institutions are neither permanent nor superintelligent

Grombobulous 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Most companies these days are incredibly disciplined on spending. That’s one reason why corporations have record profits in the last few years. The level of efficiency is so high.

That’s what makes the AI Wild West so fascinating to me. Companies just threw money at it out of fear of falling behind.

Now, I think that fear has subsided at many companies.

I always thought it was incredibly questionable that we were able to slurp down AI tooling with no questions asked. Meanwhile, if we want a piece of software for some other non-AI purpose, the prospect of spending $50/month per employee is met with deep scrutiny or outright denial by default.

HDThoreaun 4 hours ago | parent [-]

All the tokenmaxxing stuff was just management signaling that every single employee better be using AI or else. Now that everyones got the message its back to business of course

luke5441 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Maybe it was your company with the 500 million Claude bill.

christophilus 19 hours ago | parent [-]

Woah. I missed that one. Had to look it up. That’s one hell of a surprise bill.

puritanicdev 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Probably a stupid question, but isn't giving developers $200 for a Max x20 subscription cheaper than using the API? I was discussing Claude's monthly bills with some friends recently. Most of us are in the $700-$1000 range, and I don't feel like I really spend that much. I have a Max x20 personal account, and I do a ton of work for my side projects through it.

imrehg 13 hours ago | parent [-]

Above a certain size you cannot get the quota-based models.

In my org, as our Team account (quota-based) was growing, to onboard more people we _had to_ switch to Enterprise (and thus API-based costs). The switch and now cost visibility really drives home the "did this code review worth $15?" kinds of questions...

We are just building the monitoring and I think there will be a crack-down sooner rather than later.

I'm more "code as craft" person, so I'm mainly unaffected (plus found my favourite local LLMs to be the missing rubber ducky with no associated cost), butI cannot say the same for everyone else around.

ottotarc 9 hours ago | parent [-]

[dead]

i_idiot a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Were there any managers fired for incompetence?

sdesol a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Was there at least performance gains to be measured?

burningChrome a day ago | parent | next [-]

AFAIK nobody was collecting analytics. The one team I was working on had put out a goal of "30% more efficient" using AI tools. Its about as subject as you can get. We never got around to what exactly that meant before everything got shut down.

Myself and several other devs were laughing about the whole thing. The company was so amped about what AI could do they never even bothered collecting any analytics that would affirm or deny any of this had a positive impact. Even some of my team members were talking about the placebo effect AI has had on a lot of C-Suite folks.

Quarrelsome a day ago | parent | next [-]

30% is my new favourite stat. It seems to come up a lot, like the old "this work will take 6 months" that I was equally suspicious of back in the day.

ohazi 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Bender: "I'm 30% [XYZ]"

http://theinfosphere.org/Bender_Bending_Rodriguez#Compositio...

wookmaster 21 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This is all still going on at my company but they’ve been trying to create dashboards to measure us as good or bad with our output unsuccessfully but they keep shoving it through anyways. It’s demoralized a lot of people.

sdesol 20 hours ago | parent [-]

> It’s demoralized a lot of people

Isn't this a good thing? Doesn't it mean your company doesn't want employees to treat LLMs like a slot machines?

FromTheFirstIn 9 hours ago | parent [-]

But they are, so it’s demoralizing to be punished for not hitting the jackpot

stingraycharles a day ago | parent | prev [-]

> Even some of my team members were talking about the placebo effect AI has had on a lot of C-Suite folks.

What do you mean placebo effect? They thought things were created with AI while they actually weren’t?

gazebo2 a day ago | parent | next [-]

Probably meaning C-Suite thought productivity was up because of AI, either because A) metrics showed high AI usage or more commits/LOC or B) we're mandating AI usage, why wouldn't it increase?

steveBK123 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

For a lot of C-suite there has been more of a fast-follow approach to AI. CEO hears 3rd hand what competitors are doing, tells his CTO to "do AI" and "hire a head of AI".

So a lot of motion (do AI) was created without a destination (product outcome). The motion was what was being measured (we are doing AI).

grebc 15 hours ago | parent [-]

Headlines is what matters at the executive and board level. Start measuring things and they might not be able to spin a story to sell.

For a large part of society we have management in leadership positions.

steveBK123 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I saw incredible productivity gain call-outs from non-technical teams like "it saves me 15 minutes per day summarizing my email".

Trillions of CapEx for good Clippy/Siri, nice.

grebc 14 hours ago | parent [-]

The only thing the people in charge care about is this: is their equity going up? Nothing else matters like results or revenue. Quaint concept those.

2ffss 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]