[ai-christianson]

We just shipped a major feature on our SaaS product. We, of course, used AI extensively.

The thing is, this feature leaned on every bit of experience and wisdom we had as a team --things like making sure the model is right, making sure the system makes sense overall and all the pieces fit together properly.

I don't know that "4x" is how it works --in this case, the AI let us really tap into the experience and skill we already had. It made us faster, but if we were missing the experience and wisdom part, we'd just be more prolific at creating messes.

[MajimasEyepatch]

But presumably you could have built it before, just slower, which is the point. For now, that speed-up just looks like a win because it’s novel, but eventually the speed-up will be baked into people’s expectations.

[ai-christianson]

Right, I'm just pointing out that if you're "never going to get there anyway," then going 4x faster isn't going to help.

[lazide]

The biggest issue at most companies is making a lot of heat and noise while not actually delivering effectively, so I expect AI to make this problem worse.

Usually, companies benefit more from slowing down and prioritizing, not ‘going faster’.

[eru]

> For now, that speed-up just looks like a win because it’s novel, but eventually the speed-up will be baked into people’s expectations.

It will still be a win: the rewards for the new productivity have to go somewhere in the economy.

Just like other productivity improvements in the past, it will likely be shared amongst various stakeholders depending on a variety of factors. The workers will get the lion's share.

[bluefirebrand]

> rewards for the new productivity have to go somewhere in the economy

Unless it goes to me I'm not entirely sure why I should care

I'll keep doing things the old way thanks, unless I personally get some benefit from it

"You are more productive but compensated the same" just shows how many of you are suckers

[eru]

Compare and contrast https://pseudoerasmus.com/2017/10/02/ijd/

[layer8]

> The workers will get the lion's share.

This doesn’t seem to be supported by history.

[eru]

Labour share have GDP has held roughly constant throughout the ages, even as we saw massive productivity increases since the dawn of the industrial revolution.

[layer8]

How does that equate to the workers receiving the lion's share of the massive productivity increases?

Statistics like https://media.equality-trust.out.re/uploads/2024/07/incomedi... suggest that since 1970 the top 10% have profited more in their income than the bottom 50%.

[eru]

You are comparing apples to oranges here. These are two completely different things.

Image the labour share of GDP could be a constant 100%, but perhaps the top 1% of workers (eg CEOs) get all the rewards and the other 99% get nothing.

(That's not meant to be realistic, just to illustrate that you can have a very unequal distribution despite a high or even growing labour share of GDP. No opinion expressed on whether the statistics you cite are any good.)