[brookst]

$100k/year is literally nothing.

Think of it as maybe $10k/employee, figuring a conservative 10% boost in productivity against a lowball $100k/year fully burdened salary+benefits. For a company with 10,000 employees that’s $100m/year.

[34679]

That's literally not how the word "literally" works.

[jcranmer]

It literally is: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally

[superblas]

That’s literally how the English language works. It literally evolves

[card_zero]

It doesn't proliferate new forms without selection, that's not how evolution works.

(Heh, I see "proliferate" itself is a back-formation.)

[Mizza]

Even at $10k/yr/employee, you'd need 30 million people on the 10k/yr plan to hit 300B ARR. I think that's a hell of a big swing. 3 million, recoup over ten years? Maybe, but I still don't think so. And then competition between 4 or 5 vendors, larger customers figuring out it's cheaper to train their own models for one thing that gives them 90% of the productivity gains, etc.

But rather than speculating, I'm generally curious what the companies are saying to their investors about the matter.

[simianwords]

I don’t get why you need 300B arr?

[techpineapple]

But we won’t get there unless the company integration failure rate falls below 95%

[reb]

Eh, seems likely to me existing companies are structured for human labor in a way that's hard to really hard to untangle — smart individuals can level up with this stuff, but remaking an entire company demands human-level AI (not there yet) or a mostly AI-fluent team (working with/through AI is a new skill and few workers have developed it).

New co's built by individuals who get AI are best positioned to unlock the dramatic effects of the technology, and it's going to take time for them to eclipse encumbent players and then seed the labor market with AI-fluent talent