[gamblor956]

But there's also obvious value. To say otherwise tells me you haven't actually tried to make use of these tools.

The issue is not that AIs are useless. It's that they are objectively worse at the job (except apparently programming[1]), than a cheaper, entry-level worker on their first week still learning how to do the job, even though nearly a trillion dollars has been spent on them by this point. The worker gets substantially better over time, and slightly more expensive. LLM models get slightly better over time, but substantially more expensive.

[1] The output of even the latest models would have gotten a junior programmer PIP'd back when I was still programming many years ago. That is now considered to be above average code quality is a disheartening referendum on how bad programming standards have fallen since then.

[stefanfisk]

That’s assuming that the tools should be able to replace juniors. I have a hard time seeing how a junior could take over the role which Claude code currently fills in my line of work and certainly not at the same price point even if I paid for the tokens rather than a subscription.

[gamblor956]

I have a hard time seeing how a junior could take over the role which Claude code currently fills in my line of work and certainly not at the same price point even if I paid for the tokens rather than a subscription.

At the current, VC-subsidized price point, sure. But at the real market cost at which the AI companies would break even on their offerings, the junior is cheaper and more effective than Claude within about 3 months. And to be blunt, if that's not the case then the kind of programming you do is already basically junior-level development anyways and it's a waste to have seniors handing the role that could and should be handled by juniors.

[pydry]

Juniors slowed me down way way way before AI came along but theyre getting stiff competition these days from the AI slop I'm having to wade through.