[episteme]

Is that a useful thought experiment? Claude benefits you as an individual more than a coworker, but I find I hard to believe your use of Claude is more of a value add to the business than an additional coworker. Especially since that coworker will also have access to Claude.

In the past we also just raised the floor on productivity, do you think this will be different?

[shrubble]

There’s often the question of communication overhead between people; Claude would remove that.

[stanleykm]

No that’s not true at all. Humans can deal with ambiguity and operate independently. Claude can’t do that. You’re trading one “problem” for an entirely different one in this hypothetical.

[mjevans]

Isn't that what polishing 'the prompt' does? Refine the communication like an editor does for a publication? Only in this case it's instructions for how to get a transformer to mine an existing set of code to produce some sort of vaguely useful output.

The human factor adds knowledge of the why that refines the results. Not just any algorithm or a standard pattern that fits, but the correct solution for the correct question.

[fendy3002]

people talking as if communication overhead is bad. That overhead makes someone else able to substitute for you (or other one) when needs happen, and sometimes can discover concerns earlier.

[signa11]

> There’s often the question of communication overhead between people; Claude would remove that.

... and replace that with communication overhead with claude ?

[shrubble]

If you’re already communicating with Claude, it’s not additional overhead.