[jmalicki]

I suspect they're marginally profitable on API cost plans.

But the max 20x usage plans I am more skeptical of. When we're getting used to $200 or $400 costs per developer to do aggressive AI-assisted coding, what happens when those costs go up 20x? what is now $5k/yr to keep a Codex and a Claude super busy and do efficient engineering suddenly becomes $100k/yr... will the costs come down before then? Is the current "vibe-coding renaissance" sustainable in that regime?

[slopusila]

after the models get good enough to replace coders they will be able to start increasing the subscriptions back up

[jmalicki]

At $100k/yr the joke that AI means "actual Indians" starts to make a lot more sense... it is cheaper than the typical US SWE, but more than a lot of global SWEs.

[HPMOR]

No - because the AI will be super human. No human even at $1mm a year would be competitive with a $100k/yr corresponding AI subscription.

See people get confused. They think you can charge __less__ for software because it's automation. The truth is you can charge MORE, because it's high quality and consistent, once the output is good. Software is worth MORE than a corresponding human, not less.

[jmalicki]

I am unsure if you're joking or not, but you do have a point. But it's not about quality it's about supply and demand. There are a ton of variables moving at once here and who knows where the equilibrium is.

[skeptic_ai]

If we have 2-3 competitors and open sourced ones that are 90% there I think it’s hard to get so big margins.