Github Copilot has been doing this with business and enterprise seats, but that will be coming to a head very soon. I expect a fast follow after june when they re-align consumer pro and pro+ accounts.

OpenAi seems to be trying to throw tokens at clients to get lock in. So i'd be most worried about the rug pull that will come from open AI post IPO. Anthropic is already acting responsibly in this area and github copilot is attempting to remediate their insane subsidies in the next several months.

That epistemic calibration is is something they are capable of thinking through if you point it out. But they aren’t trained to stop and ask/check themselves on how confident do they have a right to be. This is a meta cognitive interrupt that is socialized into girls between 6 and 9 and is socialized into boys between 11-13. While meta cognitive interrupt to calibrate to appropriate confidence levels of knowledge is a cognitive skill that models aren’t taught and humans learn socially by pissing off other humans. It’s why we get pissed off st models when they correct ua with old bad data. Our anger is the training tool to stop doing that. Just that they can’t take in that training signal at inference time

Claude Code just caught up to cursor (no 2) in revenue and based on trajectories is about to pass GitHub copilot (number 1) in a few more months. They just locked down Deloitte with 350k seats of Claude Enterprise.

In my fortune 100 financial company they just finished crushing open ai in a broad enterprise wide evaluation. Google Gemini was never in the mix, never on the table and still isn’t. Every one of our engineers has 1k a month allocated in Claude tokens for Claude enterprise and Claude code.

There is 1 leader with enterprise. There is one leader with developers. And google has nothing to make a dent. Not Gemini 3, not Gemini cli, not anti gravity, not Gemini. There is no Code Red for Anthropic. They have clear target markets and nothing from google threatens those.

It's fascinating how a report like yours or theirs acts as a lightning rod for those who either haven't been able to work it out or have rigid mental models about how AI doesn't work and want to disprove the experience of those who choose to share their success.

A couple of points I'd add to these observations: Even if AI didn't speed anything up... even if it slowed me down by 20%, what I find is that the mental load of coding is reduced in a way that allows me to code for far more hours in a day. I can multitask, attend meetings, get 15 minutes to work on a coding task, and push it forward with minimal coding context reload tax.

Just the ability to context switch in and out of coding, combined with the reduced cognitive effort, would still increase my productivity because it allows me to code productively for many more hours per week with less mental fatigue.

But on top of that, I also antectodally experience the 2-5x speedup depending on the project. Occasionally things get difficult and maybe I only get a 1.2-1.5x speedup. But it's far easier to slot many more coding hours into the week as an experienced tech lead. I'm leaning far more on skills that are fast, intuitive abilities built up from natural talent and decades of experience: system design, technical design, design review, code review, sequencing dependencies, parsing and organizing work. Get all these things to a high degree of correctness and the coding goes much smoother, AI or no AI. AI gets me through all of these faster, outputs clear curated (by me) artifacts, and does the coding faster.

What doesn't get discussed enough is that effective AI-assisted coding has a very high skill ceiling, and there are meta-skills that make you better from the jump: knowing what you want while also having cognitive flexibility to admit when you're wrong; having that thing you want generally be pretty close to solid/decent/workable/correct (some mixture of good judgement & wisdom); communicating well; understanding the cognitive capabilities of humans and human-like entities; understanding what kind of work this particular human/human-like entity can and should do; understanding how to sequence and break down work; having a feel for what's right and wrong in design and code; having an instinct for well-formed requirements and being able to articulate why when they aren't well-formed and what is needed to make them well-formed.

These are medium and soft skills that often build up in experienced tech leads and senior developers. This is why it seems that experienced tech leads and senior developers embracing this technology are coming out of the gate with the most productivity gains.

I see the same thing with young developers who have a talent for system design, good people-reading skills, and communication. Those with cognitive flexibility and the ability to be creative in design, planning and parsing of work. This isn't your average developer, but those with these skills have much more initial success with AI whether they are young or old.

And when you have real success with AI, you get quite excited to build on that success. Momentum builds up which starts building those learning skill hours.

Do you need all these meta-skills to be successful with AI? No, but if you don't have many of them, it will take much longer to build sufficient skill in AI coding for it to gain momentum—unless we find the right general process that folks who don't have a natural talent for it can use to be successful.

There's a lot going on here with folks who take to AI coding and folks who dont. But it's not terribly surprising that it's the senior devs and old tech leads who tend to take to it faster.

I'm not so familiar with your stages model so I can't really comment. Based on your last paragraph, my engagement with meditation comes from a very different place than yours. It started in order to stabelize attention after an ADHD diagnosis; a way to get off meds. Quickly that was left behind and the real focus was enlightenment, spiritual awakening or whatever you want to call it. It was motivated by a deep spontaneous inner faith that there was something to it and it was important that I go 100% into it and discover for myself. It was not based on research or attempting to find the best approach to make my mind measurably more effective. I just felt a powerful internal yearning for awakening and I had to follow it.

Meditation and Hallucinogens can quiet the mind (or more dramatically short circuit habitual mind loops) and allow you to see the gaps in the self-ing process. The self-ing process never really stops. You never really stop having a sense of self arise from time to time, but when you see the frames and gaps of self-ing you begin to question a lot of who you think you are. And you begin to see the amount of time and energy you spend protecting the self from paper tigers.

Spiritual circles generally call this awakening and tend to over-emphasize it's specialness and idealize those who have deeply conditioned themselves to reside in that state. But it is real and mostly desirable phenominon (with a few drawbacks). Putting aside questions of full enlightenment and mind blowing transcendent unitive states, simply freeing up the consciousness that gets locked up in perpetuating the continuous sense of self and all the efforts to defend as if you are defending your physical body from harm allows for a richer, higher resolution and more textured moment to moment experience of life.

From my subjective experience it is the same sorts of filters that smooth out reality, that also give you a continuous sense of a psychological self which basically manufactures the vast majority of our problems and suffering.

If you notice, even just sitting still we are constantly moving our head just a little, constantly moving our eyes. Without these programs, our visual field would seem far more jumpy and unstable. In certain states of consciousness, these smoothing programs can become intermittent, less effective or even completely disabled.

Also, when mind rambling, chatter and perpetual loops stop, a greater amount detail can be seen and perceived through all senses. At higher and higher levels of perceptual resolution with our filters disabled and the smoothing programs down, you begin to notice that we don't perceive reality smoothly. We perceive it in tiny little frames. If you just watch the first picture, your mind isn't drawn to he frames. After looking for a bit at the second picture of the pair, suddenly you can start to see the frames of perception more clearly. It's simply a matter of learning to (or being tricked to) get past our habitual programs and filters to tune into a more fine grained perceptual reality happening.

These observations come from my own experience with psychedelics in my 20's and extensive meditation practice including a number of longer meditation retreats.

My understanding of the purpose and benefit of practice is to observe experience as it arises (whether physical sensations, sensory input or thoughts) as it arises and see how you react to it.

One key insight you find is we tend to contract toward things that are pleasant and contract away from experience that is unpleasant and space out (or seek distraction) during experience that is neutral or boring. A cognitive understanding of this contraction and spacing out is insufficient to decondition the human brain from doing it. The conditioning is too deep.

It requires using concentration and mindfulness as a microscope on our perception to see and feel the additional pain we create in the contraction. As we repeatedly connect with the pain of contraction we slowly over time stop doing it and begin to experience life in a whole new way. The capacity to face pleasant, unpleasant and neutral experiences without contracting or spacing out is quite literally a life changer.

Also, the idea of giving up desire, passion and things of this nature is often misunderstood. It is not necessary to give up ones humanity, emotions, loves or anything else. It's more about changing the way in which you perceive and engage with all experiences of life. It's not like I've stopped feeling bad. I feel bad plenty. It's more that feeling bad (and feeling good) is experienced in a very different way.