But the COO did not say that. The headline was deliberately misrepresenting what he said.
replyThe article was posted on HN and discussed a day or two ago.
replyNo, he said exactly that, if you remove the corporate sanitised language designed to not offend the Uber CTO.
replyI think you're putting way too much weight into what one person said in unprepared remarks at the 27 minute mark in a 32 minute podcast conversation.
replyThat "one" person is the COO of Uber. And the other one - the one based on whose statement about burning through yearly AI budget in the first few months - the whole discussion sprung up internally at Uber in the first place is the bloody CTO of that huge company. So yes, their words do have A TON OF WEIGHT. Thats why they are in such important positions, arent they? They're not quite the Derek from the pub, casually commenting on how Liverpool will fare this season.
replyI think the way people reacted to those statements was entirely out of proportion to what was said.
replyI repeat: a CTO saying that they spent their entire AI budget for 2026 when that budget was clearly set in 2025 before anyone knew what those November models + harnesses were capable of is entirely unsurprising. Any analysis that doesn't also point out the difference between 2025 and 2026 era coding agents is either ignorant or deliberately misleading.
Yes, but that's irrelevant, because the COO uses that to base his core argument - that all that jackshit 1800 code changes per week that the CTO boasts about, mean absolutely nothing in terms of value. It means they are spending a lot on it, to gain as he diplomatically said "perhaps 20% more" - and I wonder 20% of fucking what - it's a ride-sharing app, what could they be possibly building on top of it with all that token crap?
replyYou have to try pretty hard to get to "all that jackshit 1800 code changes per week that the CTO boasts about, mean absolutely nothing in terms of value" from what he said on that podcast.
reply