The SaaS to inhouse argument is just something I've heard that came to mind when reading this thread.

Also I dont get the inhouse argument, you dont really save anything. So instead of paying X to SaaS, you now propose to pay X to anthropic instead AND maintain said SaaS... what? how is that better, that just shifted the cost to another company and you got the burden of maintenance and responsibility.

Maybe I'm completely off base here, arguing about semantics.

If I put on my optimist hat for a moment, I hope LLM's would finally make this obvious for people, more stuff !== more value. 250k lines of code a week isn't a flex IMO, it doesn't really mean anything out of context.

For me it seems like benchmarks are mostly noise, and the rest is based on vibes. Some find newer models annoying, some are amazed.

For some reason this reminds me A LOT of past discussions about microservices, most wonderful on paper and forever debated, but I've never seen it work out perfectly in practice, for me it's mostly been a cluster F in most companies that adopted them.

Currently I see AI similarly, in theory perfect, in practice I don't see the claimed effects. So yes, skill issue, but skills are relevant and your company probably can't hire a rockstar team (if that matters in the future).

But your comment on personal experiences was very good! Spot on, we are all biased, easy to forget. Thank you for that.

But I'm not sure about the long-term effects of this, we just shifted the "subscriptions for apps" to "subscription for an app" AND you must now maintain said apps.

Maybe you are right, maybe not, let's see. Unfortunately I kinda agree, because humans are really good at being lazy and going in the path of least resistance (including me). It's genuinely difficult to not use AI even if it makes my work worse, as long as it's easier and faster.

Is this claim based on something?

I'm not against or "for" AI (whatever that means), I try to use it as effectively I can, but for me it's not at all obvious that quality is better than ever before.

Speed I can buy, especially in new projects and utilities, but quality? At least I haven't seen this in practice, if anything I'm just seeing more code, issues, PR's and pressure ==> more slop, more bugs, less quality.

You can always say "skill issue" and "process issue", but that's partly my point here, AI doesn't magically solve this.

But also, if they all use 500 agents daily and latest models can "one shot" everything, one would think 5k issues are fixed in no time...

Havent used CC in some time, worked fine last time I tried.

Couple weeks ago I had someone linking to a doc page in my ticket "Made this summary, hope it helps". It was 100% AI generated, the person clearly had no understanding of the problem, it only mentioned UI changes although the thing required changes in many systems. Complete waste of time, I don't think I will humor anyone who makes AI summaries anymore.

However, if I put my sci-fi hat on for a second, it's not so far fetched that we figure out a way to compress models to a size where it wouldn't need all that compute.

But, at the same time, I'm really tired of there always being some shroud of dishonesty (ex. navier stokes and the two mathematicians working on it).

At this point my default is that I don't blindly trust the companies, I try to keep in mind they are trying to sell their product and win market share, there are so many perverse incentives at play I just can't take anything at face value.

Personally I still use mainly Opus and find it handles most tasks quite well (without burning all my corporate quota).