41–50 of 54 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's an exact source: https://www.vanta.com/resources/why-the-next-unicorns-are-bu... I'm leaving that utm_source in the link for irony, lol. Couldn't find it from the first page of Google, but AI found it in seconds.
And AI found the wrong source in seconds, because this is dated in May and the original article you linked is from March.
The most likely path is to enable a million independent projects to flourish and to find unserved niches that lead to a good, but not exorbitant, income, at least for a time.
At my company I’ve seen 2 types of changes: 1. We’ve got a smart senior dev who’s very excited about AI. His core work hasn’t changed much, but he has generated a lot of AI driven unit tests that mock so much that they’re worse than no unit tests. I approached him about this and he kinda shrugged - said it was good test coverage went up. He’s much more attracted to building new things than making things well, which I…
Also I've experienced quite a few times where a dev I respect is quite vocally pro-AI in public but in private is very neutral or negative about it
I'm a very straightforward person, so this behavior from other people I respect is really causing me a lot of difficulty
At my work, we've been using AI since its beginnings. The company offers free subscriptions to every person, sw dev, qa, marketing, anyone. I'd say 9/10 people are using and writing code with it. I've seen no actual improvement in the development speed of our product. Same pace. Same endless discussions. Same meetings. It hasn't changed the pace nor it has lead to an explosion of ideas, implementations or discussions…
love this analogy, thank you !
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even more reason to ask the question, then. Not even three years but we know it leads to x% productivity increases, happy teams, etc, etc. We know the buzzwords. If a new, wonder drug or food or medicinal plant would appear on the radar with claims of "it increases your life expectancy by x years, your happiness and well-being by y amounts, etc, etc" would you say that those claims are based on fact or are just marke…
Personally? I find the damn thing to be magical. Truly. I can’t stop being amazed by it, so you’ll have to ask someone less head over heels with it. But I’ll grant you this, having said the above, I have no way of actually objectively proving love .
All code is reviewed by senior devs. We use Rails so that probably helps get good results.
No promotions here but our clients love the results we’re delivering (they did before AI too).
Not a 10x story but we’re definitely getting a lot more done than we did before and we’re able to maintain a level of quality we just couldn’t before. TDD + AI refactoring leads to unbelievably clean codebases.
If everyone has access to the same AI tools, why would that happen? Everyone would just have their productivity supercharged at the same rate.
I dunno about you, but in almost every one of these threads the exact same two classes of people show up: the ones championing the insane multiples they get from their AI, and the people who say "it doesn't work for me" whereupon the first class of people say "well, then you're just holding it wrong"
So, no, it's not the same rate because the non-deterministic behavior means that one cannot provide a shell script that person A and person B can run on their machine and get the same outcome like in the good ol' deterministic software tooling days
Honestly, the productivity gains feel like a mirage sometimes. Yes, I can prototype features in days instead of weeks now. But getting those prototypes to production quality? Still takes the same amount of time. Real-time voice processing can't have the hallucinations or edge case failures that AI-generated code often has.
The weirdest part is how expectations shifted. When I delivered a feature in 2 weeks before, that was good. Now if I use AI and deliver in 1 week, suddenly 1 week becomes the new baseline for everything. You're not getting ahead - you're just keeping up with inflated expectations.
I've seen the real AI profits go to people who can build complete products solo, not just code faster at their day job. A few engineers I know left big tech to build AI-powered micro-SaaS. They're making $50K/month instead of waiting years for senior staff promotions that might bump them $20K.
But here's the catch - if starting an AI product is 10x easier, so is your competition. We're seeing way more AI startups, but the success rate is about the same. The bottleneck was never "can you build it fast enough" - it was always "do people actually want this."
There's plenty of stories like this: https://www.cnbc.com/2025/03/15/y-combinator-startups-are-fa... The target for a great startup was 7% growth week-on-week, and now it's 10%. It means back then if you were making $1k/week in Jan 1, 2024, you'd expect to make $33k/week a year later. But thanks to AI, the standard is closer to $142k/week. Back then, it was normal to raise $75k or so to build a prototype, now you can…
Is that 53,000, i.e., a misplaced comma, or is it 5,300, i.e., an extra zero
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's an exact source: https://www.vanta.com/resources/why-the-next-unicorns-are-bu... I'm leaving that utm_source in the link for irony, lol. Couldn't find it from the first page of Google, but AI found it in seconds.
Garry Tan almost certainly has incentives to promote this tech. That doesn't make him wrong though.
But I doubt there will be proper data either way. Whatever model is used in research will be deprecated by the time something is peer reviewed. If a model hallucinates, can't do X, is boring, has so and so security holes, the report is out of date by the time it's released.
But the next best we have is that people who make these claims are throwing money at it. I would be highly suspicious if people made these claims and then didn't double down on their investments. Sundar says AI is bigger than fire which is highly sus, but the way he's been reorganizing one of the world's most stable companies to focus totally on AI suggests that he believes it.