upvote
No one involved in this is thinking about the long term
reply
No one is thinking, the AI does that for them.
reply
AI does the work, it does not replace the thinking. It's like saying a tech lead in a project does not do any thinking because there's some junior dev doing tedious and boring tasks.
reply
> But aren't you developing bad habits and learning patterns that won't work long term?

2 reasons - there's an advantage now, use it. 2nd the frontier providers, this is the "early cheap days" like when uber was initially cheap to compete vs standard cabs. they want you to become hooked and boy are we hooked.

reply
hooked to ai coding, but not tied to any particular model. if they decide to bump prices up, I can easily switch to a cheaper chinese model on openrouter.
reply
Yes network effects are significantly less than something like Uber, in fact they’re almost nonexistent
reply
This is why they enforce the use of client apps like Claude Code/Codex (although OpenAI is a little more lenient). Trying to create a network effect.
reply
Yeah it makes sense, but ultimately the only thing that creates any form of lock in is the chat history and memories, and that isn’t super important, it’s not a real network effect like a social media app or a taxi app.

Having a better model is the only real moat, without that inference is a commodity

reply
There isn't lock in and this is what scares them. Switching cost is SO LOW. Our team runs the 3 main models to cross check work without any issues.

The benefits are real and our willingness to pay is real, but the valuations only support one and right now even the free cheap models might win. Thusly the collapse could still happen.

reply
I think it will happen, like you say switching is easy and the only possible moat is to build a better model than your competitors at enormous expense.

They’re all stuck in a cycle of spending huge amounts of money on training just to stand still (in business terms).

In the long run, it can’t continue because it doesn’t make any sense

reply
Compared to what a lot of companies spend on software for chip and electronics design (we're talking about $10k-200k/seat per year), AI coding assistants have a long way to go in cost before companies won't be willing to pay for them. Companies pay a fortune for software when it enables their engineers to be productive.

For my company, I'd honestly pay $4-8k/month for Claude if I had to (it would be painful, and I'd try to get cheaper options to work first). I know some enterprise Claude users are paying that much now since they have to pay for API tokens. I am certain it's at least a 2X productivity booster for our work. Compared to the cost of hiring another developer, it's well worth it.

If they stop subsidising Claude Code for the pro/max users, there will be a lot of people priced out of it, especially the casual developer. But I don't see it going away for commercial use, even with a large price increase.

reply
Nah dude I think it’s worse than that

Old coding is done, as a workflow in teams. It’s the top down executive pressure of being non competitive as a company, and the bottom up pressure of human laziness

Show me people handwriting code à la NASA

And I mean we as coders have been trying to do this workflow for a while, I personally would refuse to code without IntelliJ magic complete

For this workflow, there’s no going back. What’s hard to imagine is AI taking over the other workflows we predict it will; Customer service AI sucks ass for me as a customer, et cetera

reply
I don’t mind bad customer service AI any more, since it’s my claude interacting with it, not me.
reply
> For my company, I'd honestly pay $4-8k/month for Claude if I had to (it would be painful, and I'd try to get cheaper options to work first). I know some enterprise Claude users are paying that much now since they have to pay for API tokens. I am certain it's at least a 2X productivity booster for our work. Compared to the cost of hiring another developer, it's well worth it.

That enterprise cost you're willing to pay is correlated to how much developers will work for. When driving an agent, almost anyone can do it (almost no skills required).

If devs cost $1k/m, enterprises are not going to be willing to pay $4k/m for Claude.

What I am saying is, there's an equilibrium that will be reached; the price of the human driver and the AI worker will approach each other.

Where they stabilise, I still don't know, but I'd be very surprised if, in any field (not just dev), the human gets paid multiples more than the agent they are driving, as the agents get more capable.

reply
You also have a cost of team interaction going with square if team size or sth.
reply
I use the frontier openai/anthropic models at work but exclusively open weight models (on cloud/hosted inference) for personal stuff and I think about it like this; 1) I don't see any reason GLM and DeepSeek won't eventually be as good as Claude, it's just a matter of time and 2) the open models are well and truly capable enough for most of what I'd want to do. I don't need nor want an LLM chewing away on a horrible enterprise spaghetti codebase, my employers can pay for that privilege.
reply
Long term, we will see what happens and adapt. At worst we all go back coding by hand. Meanwhile what can I do, tell my customers that I'm raising my fee because I have to pay for token? The Claude Pro $20 plan is good enough for me and even in auto mode I never had to wait for the 5 hours reset.
reply
I expect by that point we'll have local models that can do a decent job, I would guess give it a decade and we'll be running custom accelerators that are smarter than current frontier models.

In the same way that only supercomputers used to have multiple processors and caches but it's now standard.

reply
The base costs fall down 2-5x year by year, and they will continue falling due to infra ramp up, asics and distilled models.
reply