> Now spend 0.5x their salary on AI, and they become 5x productive compared to no AI. > > Now spend 1.1x their salary on AI, and they become 20x productive compared to no AI.

This is what I am getting at. If this were true - and I've yet to see evidence it is, despite some anecdotal evidence (organizationally, IME, it's about 2-3x for power users, and probably a net loss of productivity in certain areas) - why would their headcount be growing so much still YoY, pretty much doubling every year. If the AI is 10-20xing why such a big jump in headcount? Yes, the numbers are shiny, the growth is apparent, I would just expect with this AI narrative they'd be "doing more with less" as this thing improves every year.

> The AI usage still needs a knowledge worker to direct it in ways that it can't direct itself, so you still need the employees.

This is the story AI sells though, and Anthropic has participated in it heavily. Yet, their interview process requires hard skills and doesn't let you use AI, so clearly, what you're saying is correct, it just doesn't really align in my head with the whole knowledge worker being replaced narrative.

I mean, just what I did this morning with Claude would have taken me 2 weeks on my own. So 20x is pretty reasonable for certain types of engineering.

But it's also true that when I'm working on 2 things at once, the bottleneck is me. I'm spending all my time giving Claude direction that it can't give itself.

So you basically have to separate out the tasks where AI can produce a 20x productivity boost, and the stuff where it can't help at all.

There's still so much stuff where it can't help at all, you need real human employees for that. That's why Anthropic is continuing to hire at breakneck pace.

And that's what I'm saying -- knowledge workers aren't being replaced. They're just accomplishing tons more work, and companies aren't running out of work to do.