I’m not sure about this. I’ve been 100% ai since jan/1 and I’m way more productive at producing code.
The non code parts (about 90% of the work) is taking the same amount of time though.
AI adoption and Solow's productivity paradox
181–190 of 783 posts
Re: AI adoption and Solow's productivity paradox
#182The thing with a lot of white collar work is that the thinking/talking is often the majority of the work… unlike coding, where thinking is (or, used to be, pre-agent) a smaller percentage of the time consumed. Writing the software, which is essentially working through how to implement the thought, used to take a much larger percentage of the overall time consumed from thought to completion. Other white collar busines…
I’m confused what kind of software engineer jobs there are that don’t involve meeting with people, “aligning expectations”, getting consensus, making slides/decks to communicate that, thinking about market positioning, etc? If you weren’t doing much of that before, I struggled to think of how you were doing much engineering at all, save some more niche extremely technical roles where many of those questions were alre…
In my case
* meeting with people, yes, on calls, on chats, sometimes even on phone
* “aligning expectations”, yes, because of the next point
* getting consensus, yes, inevitably or how else do we decide what to do and how to do it?
* making slides/decks to communicate that, not anymore, but this is a specific tool of the job, like programming in Java vs in Python.
* thinking about market positioning, no, but this is what only a few people in an organization have agency on.
* etc? Yes, for example don't piss off other people, help custumers using the product, identify new functionalities that could help us deliver a better product, prioritize them and then back to getting consensus.
Re: AI adoption and Solow's productivity paradox
#183Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s also pretty wild to me how people still don’t really even know how to use it. On hacker news, a very tech literate place, I see people thinking modern AI models can’t generate working code. The other day in real life I was talking to a friend of mine about ChatGPT. They didn’t know you needed to turn on “thinking” to get higher quality results. This is a technical person who has worked at Amazon. You can’t expec…
In a WhatsApp group full of doctors, managers, journalist and engineers (including software) in age of 30-60 I asked if anyone heard of openclaw and only 3 people heard of it from influencers, none used it. But from my social feed the impression was that it is taking over the world:) I asked it because I am building something similar since some tome and I thought its over they were faster than me but as it appears th…
> I asked it because I am building something similar since some tome and I thought its over they were faster than me
If you have been working on a usecase similar to OpenClaw for sometime now I'd actually say you are in a great position to start raising now.
Being first to market is not a significant moat in most cases. Few people want to invest in the first company in a category - it's too risky. If there are a couple of other early players then the risk profile has been reduced.
That said, you NEED to concentrate on GTM - technology is commodified, distribution is not.
> It appears that so far the mainstream success in AI is limited to slop generation and even that is actually small number of people generating huge amounts of slop
The growth of AI slop has been exponential, but the application of agents for domain specific usecases has been decently successful.
The biggest reason you don't hear about it on HN is because domain-specific applications are not well known on HN, and most enterprises are not publicizing the fact that they are using these tools internally.
Furthermore, almost anyone who is shipping something with actual enterprise usage is under fairly onerous NDAs right now and every company has someone monitoring HN like a hawk.
Re: AI adoption and Solow's productivity paradox
#184I was in the “AI is grossly overhyped” camp because I work on large distributed deep learning training jobs and AI is indeed worthless for those, and will likely always be worthless since the APIs change constantly and the iteration loop is too cumbersome to constantly resubmit broken jobs to a training cluster.
Then I started working on some basic grpc/fullstack crap that I absolutely do not care about, at all, but needs to be done and uses internal frameworks that are not well documented, and now Claude is my best friend at work.
The best part is everyone else’s AI code still sucks, because they ask it to do stupid crap and don’t apply any critical thinking skills to it, so I just tell AI to re-do it but don’t fuck up the error handling and use constants instead of hardcoding strings like a middle schooler, and now I’m a 100x developer fearlessly leading the charge to usher in the AI era as I play the new No Man’s Sky update on my other PC and wait for whatever agent to finish crap.
Re: AI adoption and Solow's productivity paradox
#185Earlier quoted context omitted.
And that book sort of vaguely hints around at all these jobs that are surely bullshit but won’t identify them concretely. Not recognizing the essential role of sales seemed to be a common mistake.
What counts as “concretely”? And I don’t recall it calling sales bullshit. It identified advertising as part of the category that it classed as heavily-bullshit-jobs for reason of being zero-sum—your competitor spends more, so you spent more to avoid falling behind, standard red queen’s race. (Another in this category was the military, which is kinda the classic case of this—see also, the Missile Gap, the dreadnought…
> And I don’t recall it calling sales bullshit.
It says stuff like why can’t a customer just order from an online form? The employee who helps them doesn’t do anything except make them feel better. Must be a bullshit job. It talks specifically about my employees filling internal roles like this.
> advertising
I understand the arms race argument, but it’s really hard to see what an alternative looks like. People can spend money to make you more aware of something. You can limit some modes, but that kind of just exists.
I don’t see how they aren’t performing an important function.
Re: AI adoption and Solow's productivity paradox
#186Just to be clear, the article is NOT criticizing this. To the contrary, it's presenting it as expected , thanks to Solow's productivity paradox [1]. Which is that information technology similarly (and seemingly shockingly) didn't produce any net economic gains in the 1970's or 1980's despite all the computerization. It wasn't until the mid-to-late 1990's that information technology finally started to show clear benef…
The coding tools are not hard to pick up. Agent chat and autocomplete in IDE's are braindead simple, and even TUI's like Claude are extremely easy to pickup (I think it took me a day?) And despite what the vibers like to pretend, learning to prompt them isn't that hard either. Or, let me clarify, if you know how to code, and you know how you want something coded, prompting them isn't that hard. I can't imagine it'll…
It reminds me a lot of adderall's effect on people without ADHD. A pretty universal feeling that it's making you smarter, paired with no measurable increase in test scores.
Re: AI adoption and Solow's productivity paradox
#187Earlier quoted context omitted.
I always assumed that with inference being so cheap, my subscription fees were paying for training costs, not inference.
Anthropic and OpenAI are both well documented as losing billions of dollars a year because their revenue doesn't cover their R&D and training costs, but that doesn't mean their revenue doesn't cover their inference costs.
Does it matter if they can't ever stop training though? Like, this argument usually seems to imply that training is a one-off, not an ongoing process. I could save a lot of money if I stopped eating, but it'd be a short lived experiment.
I'll be convinced they're actually making money when they stop asking for $30 billion funding rounds. None of that money is free! Whoever is giving them that money wants a return on their investment, somehow.
Re: AI adoption and Solow's productivity paradox
#188There is probably a threshold effect above which the technology begins to be very useful for production (other than faking school assignments, one-off-scripts, spam, language translation, and political propaganda), but I guess we're not there yet. I'm not counting out the possibility of researchers finding a way to add long term memory or stronger reasoning abilities, which would change the game in a very disorientin…
the greatest step change will be when mainstream business realise they can use AI to accurately fill in PDF documents with information in any format filling in pdf documents is effectively the job of millions of people around the world
That would require accurate validation of said documents, which is extremely hard now. Pointing 1 million PDF LLM machine guns at current validation pipelines will not end well, especially since LLMs are inherently unreliable.
Re: AI adoption and Solow's productivity paradox
#189At $dayjob GenAI has been shoved into every workflow and it's a constant source of noise and irritation, slop galore. I'm so close to walking away from the industry to resume being a mechanic, what a complete shit show.
Meanwhile in some auto shop,
"Perfect! Let's delve into the problem with the engine. Based on the symptoms you describe, the likely cause is a blown head gasket..."
Re: AI adoption and Solow's productivity paradox
#190Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed. We do have a way to see the financial impact - just add up Anthropic and oAI's reported revenues -> something like $30b in annual run rate. Given growth rates, (stratospheric), it seems reasonable to conclude informed buyers see economic and/or strategic benefit in excess of their spend. I certainly do! That puts the benefits to the economy at just around where Mastercard's benefits are, on a dollar basis. Bu…
Investors are optimistic, but what will this new tech be used for? Advertising? Propaganda? Surveillance? Drone strikes? Does profitable always equal useful? Might other cultures justifiably think differently, like the Amish?
The Amish are skilled at getting cash from the “English” as they call non-Amish. I imagine they also think that the money they receive is roughly tied to value they create. I wasn’t talking valuations, just revenue - money that CFOs and individuals spent so far, and are planning on spending.
I also didn’t talk profitable. Upshot, though, I don’t think it’s just a US thing to say that when money exchanges hands, generally both parties feel they are better off, and therefore there is value implied in a transaction.
As to what it will be used for: yes.