top 96 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 136 points 3 weeks ago (35 children)

January: We're going AI native, please use AI as much as possible.

March: Everyone needs to attend workshops on how to maximize AI productivity.

July: Some models are only available for special (properly justified) cases. Speak to your manager. Turns out that some people did everything (even commits) with top cost models.

August: Ok, we're setting some limits on token usage, due to some people spending 1000% over the average.

September: we are creating additional frameworks and limits to AI use.

It took a bit of time for the actual AI cost/benefit to reach the top management and put some hard numbers in contrast with the hype machine, but it's happening.

  • source
  • hideshow 35 child comments
  • [–] 52 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

    My company is at the July stage. Who knew giving people unrestricted access to Claude enterpise with no training would blow through budgets in days

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 3 weeks ago

    Our management is so "forward-looking" that we are still in the March stage: they want AI used everywhere, and added everywhere in the product.

    Saying that sometimes you still need to use the brain for big decisions will make some people question your prompting skills publicly.

    Hell, we even rebranded the whole company to be an """AI company""". I hate it there and I sense layoffs coming soon, but finding a job in this period is hard. Wish me luck.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 46 points 3 weeks ago (20 children)

    Everyone who was paying attention even a little bit has known this would be the trajectory from the beginning. And we haven't even gotten to the crazy price hikes per token that are coming.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [+] -20 points 3 weeks ago (19 children)

    And we haven't even gotten to the crazy price hikes per token that are coming.

    Why do you think that?

    IMHO, API prices are likely to drop over time as we scale up and efficiencies are found, combined with general pricing pressure from the competition... SOTA models will continue to have SOTA prices, of course, but reasonable priced distilled and open weights models are already common.

    A consequence of API prices dropping is that "heavily discounted" consumer plans will also adjust and won't be so generous relative to API prices.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 29 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)

    IMHO, API prices are likely to drop over time as we scale up and efficiencies are found, combined with general pricing pressure from the competition... SOTA models will continue to have SOTA prices, of course, but reasonable priced distilled and open weights models are already common.

    Some of this seems like wishful thinking to me.

    "as we scale up" We already have large data centers, and, if anything, "scaling up" is just driving up expenses for debt and hardware. The real problem with AI, relative to the internet boom, is that the more you use it, the more expensive it is. The economies of scale to be taken advantage of are minimal.

    I do think price of compute will come down, but exactly because people will be running their own open source models on their own hardware instead of Sam Altman to stack GPUs in a warehouse, but it will still be too expensive and inaccurate.

    And we're still headed for a financial cliff in this scenario.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago (2 children)

    Like a fraction of a percent of people will run their own models. It won't influence price. Remember that coders/tech people are only a minority of users.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    Oh, I see. I was mistaken. I thought tech companies were OpenAI's major customers, and they certainly could make their own data centers for internal work, and that coders--that minority of users--were the only ones likely to pay full price for tokens, the rest of us wouldn´t be willing to pay full fare for a machine that is right most of the time sort of. Thanks for setting me straight on that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago

    Some large companies do it ... but I think you greatly overestimate the willingness of large enterprises to build and maintain their own infra. Once a company has lost the competency (and many have), it's hard to get it back. There are always pockets of people with the right skillset in a large org, but they mostly don't want to do DC work anymore. Team/personal servers and beefy laptops, otoh...

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    Of course they want to turn the corner and ideally keep all their infra, but they might need to restructure their debts if/when the creditors come knocking.

    BUT: they have a money printing machine with inference... Enterprise is where most of the money is made, as they pay (closer to) API prices... consumer & small business plans are heavily discounted in comparison, with mostly underutilized use-it-or-lose it plans. They'd be stupid if they were making an opex loss on inference.

    As for why API prices are dropping? Competition is a bitch... but they seem willing and able to play the game for now.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 24 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

    Because these companies started selling at a loss from the start to get people hooked. Neither Claude nor OpenAI are turning a profit right now.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 3 weeks ago* (3 children)

    The biggest problem isn't cost of running the models right now, the biggest problem is all the debt they built up on training and data center buildouts. That's what they need to recoup and that's what's going to drive prices up. And once it's recouped they'll need to make pure profits.

    And I hope that debt kills them because all the big AI companies are terrible in one way or another, and the eventual price disparity will make it uneconomical to use their models. Then we might return right back to development focusing on small models, not large ones.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 weeks ago

    But aren’t the AI companies always needing to train the next version and replace/upgrade the HW? If it were just a one time startup cost then maybe they could become profitable, but if they will always need to invest heavily in traing the next gen and replacing HW every 2 years, then that’s more of an ongoing expense.

  • source
  • parent
  • But look how dangerous these models are. They need to be regulated so that only responsible closed model providers can produce them.

    Just ignore that the responsible closed model providers are the ones opening their sandboxes and training their models on blackhat sources.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 3 weeks ago (7 children)

    They were supposed to do their IPO and have positive cash flow already. Time is running out before investors are getting antsy and there's no more money available for scaling up.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 3 weeks ago (6 children)

    They gobbled up the easy money... now they have to work harder for more, and yeah, they may have to slow down a bit and embrace fiscal responsibility... I expect to see restructuring of debts along the way, but I'd be very surprised to see any of the major US based players implode.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 weeks ago* (5 children)

    Both Anthropic & OpenAI have debt repayments coming up in 2027 that:

    • cannot be restructured
    • cannot be postponed
    • they absolutely cannot pay back without even more VC money, and that faucet is being cut off right now.
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago* (4 children)

    Both Anthropic & OpenAI have debt repayments coming up in 2027 that:

    • cannot be restructured
    • cannot be postponed
    • they absolutely cannot pay back without even more VC money, and that faucet is being cut off right now.

    Well then. I stand corrected. The random Internet person with unprecedented access into the books & private financial dealings of two major competitors has an air-tight argument.

    I suggest we come back to this thread in a year's time and see how it is playing out.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago* (2 children)

    It's actually common knowledge if you'd just fucking look.

    Also, LOL

    That's a capital furnace. Not a company that will ever turn a profit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    72b of that 80b is an increase of the estimated fair value of some debt instruments, funnily enough because Anthropic's valuation has increased.

    IMHO, it serves as an incentive for creditors to keep the ship afloat, rather than pulling the plug. No guarantees, but interests are better aligned.

    Revenue-wise, it's on the right trajectory.. However, infra investments will eventually have to match the revenue they generate.

    They might also start pulling rabbits out of their hat with meaningful economic value beyond writing code and sorting emails ... solve male pattern baldness in rich white men and you're golden 🤣

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 3 weeks ago (8 children)

    Do we work at the same company??

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 3 weeks ago (7 children)

    I think this was the standard management reaction across all the companies that embraced AI as if it was the second coming of Jesus Christ.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

    They thought it was their ticket to fire everybody, and the more they made you use it the sooner they could fire you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

    Soon, the guys upstairs will realise that the real savings are in replacing the middle management with agents, not replacing the workers. Fingers crossed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

    That will just become a different kind of hell

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    I don't doubt that for a second, my friend.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 3 weeks ago

    I was a PM at a major now-hyperscaler and one of the engineers on my team was pretty vocal about PM not contributing.

    He ended up leaving for a team that didn't have one. A few years later I happened to be in his new building, he saw me, and came up with this huge grin on his face, "oh wow are you joining our team?"

    You always hate the chick writing the specs until you don't have one any more. 😂

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 14 points 3 weeks ago

    I feel like we're co-workers, with how perfectly that timeline matched the day-job's progression.

    We're at "did you take the seminar on looping that uses tokens like a firehouse so you can use less tokens? Why are you using too little (/not enough) tokens, and why is it not magically 10x-ing all of your (fucking ansible) config?" Or some shit.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 209 points 3 weeks ago (9 children)

    Management spent two years demanding everyone use AI, then discovered everyone was using AI. Now they’re shocked the office is a conveyor belt of hallucinated PowerPoints reviewed by other bots. The real productivity breakthrough will be executives learning that buying subscriptions isn’t a business strategy.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 83 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

    I just wish my company would start hiring again. I have been using the AI out of necessity, because we are short-staffed in certain areas. I've asked several times, directly, how much my AI use is costing and nobody is in a position to know. It's certainly helped in some areas but I want to build a case that hiring a college grad or two can help more....

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 89 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 child)

    Being short staffed is the whole point. They believe (where they are right or wrong) AI will replace large number employees. For example in my company where that are pushing vibe coding, my boss said that now they believe that the large projects need less people.

    If you use AI and still have to work overtime you are your own problem. As long as you deliver why would they change anything? Don't deliver. It is not worth sacrificing your health for someone's else's profits. You have only one life.

    I see people who embraced vibe coding still working overtime and over weekends, more than before.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 16 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

    After talking to some people who actually have been forced to work with AI on projects in teams Its been horrifying to find how little time they are given to build out proper safe guards, rules and test the process.

    Management seems to be expecting these stupid robots to work the first time every time

    Even in small projects for every 8 hours of work there's a good hour or two of adjusting memory, standing rules, hooks, and countless other things.

    It's endless upkeep. Every shift in work flow tends to create knock on effects.

    Management of the bot it self becomes a massive work load if you want them to be even remotely reliable.

    I'm not surprised their use in a corporate environment is backfiring massively.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 weeks ago

    It reminds me of talking to a coworker where I teach about taking on a side job. "All he wants is to take stuff from these 3 databases, and then reformat them to go into this database that he can use with this other software."

    They didn't like when I told them that they couldn't just vibe code it in a month and that my previous job was working with a persistent and ongoing team of almost 10 people doing that same type of thing.

    To clarify before anyone asks, yes, these are all 3 live databases in production environments.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    I sort of know what you mean. The company I work for has been encouraging the use of AI/LLMs. But some of the company leadership has been smart about it. We recently got some AI agents to use as tools in our workflow. However, they tested the agents for a few weeks before allowing us to use them, so that they know the agents do what they're suppose to do.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 3 weeks ago

    However, they tested the agents for a few weeks before allowing us to use them, so that they know the agents do what they're suppose to do.

    I hope they're planning on doing that for every model change, or pinning it to a specific model. Otherwise, you're gonna have a bad time when model updates completely change how the bot functions.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 3 weeks ago

    Yeah, turns out the executive class, the would-be nobility, are incompetent idiots by their own standards, and are primarily driven by their own malignant sociopathic narcissism, not any of the stories they tell about themselves.

    If you want competent executives, they'd need an actually effective selection pressure that punishes incompetence and rewards competence... but they already destroyed that.

    So, either we, or somebody, builds some mechanism or system that does that... or they all preen themselves rigourously while steering the ship directly into an iceberg, with all of us onboard.

    They will genuienly not understand why we hate them for killing us all.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 76 points 3 weeks ago (6 children)

    they cut our copilot budget to 19€ per person (you can request more. but of course it’s a hassle)

    they still insist AI the future and more AI is better. they are just now shifting the blame to employees: “you need to think more about how you use it”, “you cannot just throw tokens at a problem”, etc

    two months ago I got an email from a manager asking me why my AI spending was so low.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 51 points 3 weeks ago

    Wait, we're not tokenmaxing anymore? So when the AI salesman said to make a leaderboard of people spening the hardest, it was to line their own pockets with cash? Huh. Color me surprised.

    So next, you'll tell me that it costs more to have an LLM produce the same quality of code as a senior developer.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

    sounds like they are creating another excuse for another round layoffs.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    €19 sounds like a per user subscription deal, but I didn't think they were available to commercial customers anymore? What am I missing?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 66 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

    At our company, 12 months ago they said everyone wasn't using enough AI. They even made a leaderboard to see who was using the most tokens in the business and encouraged more and more.

    A couple of months ago, everyone's AI spend was restricted to $100/month without warning. Entire workflows broken overnight because people had built theirs around Claude skills that used stupid amounts of tokens.

    Now they're starting layoffs. Go figure.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 48 points 3 weeks ago (7 children)

    Someone sent me what was clearly an AI generated doc. I read it, realized it was all AI, had my AI summarize it and ended up with nothing that brought new thinking

    What a loop...

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 3 weeks ago

    This is the thing that drives me absolutely nuts with how most people use LLMs at work. I'm fully capable of asking the LLM to create slop, I need others to actually check and ensure their documentation is useful and correct before communicating it with others.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -13 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)
  • [–] 8 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

    They're just quoting the article... Which you'd know if you bothered to read at all, or even just look at the fact that it was quoted in their comment.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 117 points 3 weeks ago (19 children)

    Ernst and Young say 36% of companies using AI have experienced catastrophic incidents.

    Hopefully some of them go bankrupt. That would be a stellar way to get rid of some bad management.

  • source
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 68 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

    Hahaha. No. Management is not losing jobs over this. Not in the quantities needed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

    If anyone important does get fired they'll just get re-hired by another company who needs some doofus to fill a position in upper management.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    "And why did you leave your last job?"

    "The company went bankrupt due to severe mismanagement."

    "How did you get your management position at that company?"

    "My dad was rich."

    "You're hired."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 11 points 3 weeks ago

    “Now watch this drive”

    You forgot the part where they’re on the golf course and already know each other and are acting like there’d be an interview because pretending to be poor and like the world is based to any degree on merit is actually hilarious to them.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 27 points 3 weeks ago (13 children)

    get rid of some bad management.

    Good luck. Like cockroaches, they'd probably survive a nuclear holocaust.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 3 weeks ago (12 children)

    Is it because they turn bad once they become management? Or were they like that from the beginning?
    Personally I think it's both, but mostly the latter.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    Both. People who are promoted to management because they are good individual contributors are often lacking in management skills (they turn from something they are good at to something they are bad at), and people who crave and hard pursue management positions rarely have management skills (always bad).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 14 points 3 weeks ago* (1 child)

    Frankly, I think we all have a bad manager inside of us, and the problem is that being put in a manager position exposes you to humanity-draining incentives that feed the bad manager parts of you, until it defines you. Higher compensation and promotions for focusing on costs and not quality, and short-term gains rather than long-term stability.

    If you're unusually self-aware and smart, and put effort into grounding yourself, you may counteract it, but most people probably just float through life and let those incentives define them and their choices.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

    Both. Whether you're considering empathy or competency.

    Increased power—in pay or in authority—may be followed by decreased empathy (they turn bad). Conversely, dark triad traits have been linked with success like promotion to management (they were bad already). The research on this side has been criticized, mainly for methodology. I think the underlying idea makes intuitive sense.

    On the competency side, there's the Peter Principle, originally satirical but subsequently researched. Good employees are promoted to a position of incompetence (they turn bad, or rather, are promoted until they are no longer good). Or, they were incompetent and promoted anyway to get them out of the way (they were bad).

    And the mechanisms are not mutually exclusive. E.g., a good employee is promoted, they are bad as a manager, then entrench as their new authority leads to less empathy.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 3 weeks ago

    It's a feedback loop.

    Upper management can't tell what good work is, and thus whomever is the most shameless in talking themselves up wins, unless they royally screw up in a way that can't be missed. If you have any shred of humility or nuance about your work, you are almost certainly not management material.

    I have met like 3 or 4 people that I actually had respect for in management roles, but overwhelmingly they were there solely on an overinflated sense of self importance rather than substance.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

    It also attracts narcissistic people without empathy (and sadic people), a bit like the church attracts pedophiles. Not everyone is, but in the end it's too many (over 0).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

    It also attracts narcissistic people

    This has AFAIK actually been documented.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago (2 children)

    If you have more information about that, I'll be all ears!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 weeks ago* (1 child)

    I wrote AFAIK, which means I don't have a source at hand, only memory of having seen the claim documented by research somewhere...

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-justice-and-responsibility-league/200904/why-some-psychopaths-are-in-leadership-positions

    It is well observed that psychopaths (a.k.a. sociopaths) are found both in prison and in managerial positions.

    That comment is made by a PhD psychologistm and confirms it.

    Feel free to investigate further, at least you now know there is something for sure.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 3 weeks ago

    I think they get promoted to management because they're bad.

    They're not going to promote the guy who knows what he's doing, because they need him to keep working in his current role. The guy who slacks off, bosses people around, and gets chummy with the boss though? Perfect candidate for promotion.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 39 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

    We are ruled by idiots. It's probably been that way for the majority of history.

    Most places I've worked, management has been a negative force.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    Management is good at accumulating and maintaining power. Competence in actually getting stuff done doesn't really help with that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 38 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    I tried AI-everything (apart from code review of course). But it's just too hard. Letting the AI do bigger things results in subtle, hard to find, but devastating design fails and errors. It's fractal. No matter what layer I look at, it's always sort-of working but also bugged in subtle and sometimes hard-to-fix ways.
    So I don't do that. Instead I use the AI as an assistant while I still do most of the actual work. I downgraded my account too because I never reached the limits for a while.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 26 points 3 weeks ago*

    Ding ding ding. It's fucking GREAT for eliminating the menial bullshit like scaffolding, data cleanup, sifting through overly verbose documentation... Anything that requires abstract thought still needs to be done by a human.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 36 points 3 weeks ago (6 children)

    People at my company are broadly phoning it in with AI. Everyone on my team was complaining the other day that people keep posting in our team Slack channel with Claude and we are the only humans in the conversation.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 31 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)

    Recently in my team people are posting AI output for review, and others feed it into a chat bot and paste the result.

    So which trade are you thinking of changing to?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

    So which trade are you thinking of changing to?

    I’m sure there will be a lot of demand for AI slop cleaner-uppers in the near future.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    Yes, in the future being created for us, 95% of jobs will be janitors mopping up AI slop.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 3 weeks ago*

    To be fair that's been a common industry for much of human history.

    The professional fixer of the stupidity of the rich. Is a age old profession and well respected.

    Just this times it's, the slop machine is working what are we paying you for. The slop machine is broke what are we paying you for!

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 3 weeks ago

    Water treatment technicians are in very high demand. That's my next move I think. It won't pay half as well as tech but there's room for growth and good benefits. I think I'm just about done working for these shitty executives.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›