| ▲ | besterman23 a day ago |
| I can’t speak for everyone, but I would intuitively venture to guess there would be some greater than marginal productivity benefits from say, a $200/m Claude sub for each employee in many organizations outside of tech. Perhaps they’re all on the $20/m plan which is useless? |
|
| ▲ | computomatic a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| “Marginal” improvement isn’t really going to be enough. Products need to be closer to 10x better than the alternative to get traction (which can be divided across several dimensions). AI, I think, is just starting to get there. |
| |
| ▲ | besterman23 a day ago | parent | next [-] | | I get what you’re saying but I’m just not a fan of this type of argument. It always paints AI as this “in the future” thing which absolves any current criticisms or observations. LLMs are great and definitely make you more productive, for some reason 493/500 firms haven’t been able to figure that out even though it’s trivially easy to provide employees with frontier models and it’s also trivially easy to use frontier models. Which is why I say comparing it to personal computers in 1987 is not an apt comparison. That took redefining physical workspaces, new infrastructure, and new personnel which wasn’t easy to come by. Becoming a company that uses AI is just as easy (if not easier) as using any other SaaS. | |
| ▲ | kaffekaka a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | See sibling comment. 10x measured how? In pure coding tasks under certain conditions the speedup is huge, but seems really unclear how this would transfer to any significant speedup across the whole undertaking (project, delivery etc). |
|
|
| ▲ | kaffekaka a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Maybe, even likely. But how do you observe this? We are in this situation at work, it feels like "sure AI is helpful" but do we actually deliver any faster? |
|
| ▲ | throw765392 a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Or just in enterprises where they can't have plans. |
