[codingdave]

If it were commonplace, there wouldn't be a post and discussion about it. Cheap? Arguable - while it didn't cost thousands, it wasn't free. Cheap is in the eye of the beholder. Efficient...How do we even measure that? The massive infrastructure and training to take a product to the point where someone could do this is massive. Ignoring everything behind the scenes and acting like one session and result is the whole picture of efficiency doesn't seem right. And no, nothing produced by AI makes skills irrelevant. That is the whole ongoing argument of whether people are losing cognitive ability by moving their thinking to AI.

Overall, this is an impressive proof of capability. But I wouldn't take that proof as anything more than what it is.

[Izmaki]

Seconded on the "not cheap" argument here. I've spent $25 worth of tokens completing a one-week task in an afternoon, or rather my company spent the money. I would never have personally felt OK with throwing this much money after some prompting back and forth for a few hours, one lazy Saturday afternoon. I ran the risk of not finding the solution before the token usage would be too high for me to want to carry on, if I was my own credit card linked to the account.

Of course money in this situation is a bit of a funny measurement, right, because if I was able to take the rest of the week off as soon as I had solved the one-week problem, then I would have no problem at all throwing even $100 worth of tokens at it, so I could enjoy a nice 4-day "mini-vacation".

How cheap "cheap" is, is indeed "in the eye of the beholder".

[throw310822]

Is is sarcasm? $25 to perform in half a day a week of work, that is not cheap, it's a massive saving of money- probably in the thousands.

[Izmaki]

It's not sarcasm. If I had to pay $25 to perform my work from an ever-growing pile of projects, I would be losing money. That's not "cheap intelligence" for me. It certainly is for my employer, though, because for the mere price of $25 extra per day they can get 4*X the product per period of time.

In Scrum terms my personal velocity grows by a factor of four or more with access to agentic AI workload, but if it means that I will just be asked to "consume" 4*X more Story Points per sprint, I'm not the winner in the end, my employer is. If they asked me to complete X Story Points per sprint regardless of my velocity, and they let me take the days off when I was done, I would be the winner. But that's not how it works.

AI is "Cheap" for the person/organization that gets more product for less money, not for the individual person building the product faster.

[throw310822]

I'll simplify it for you: AI is cheap for those who pay for it.

[pfdietz]

So, it's cheap.

[shinryuu]

For whom is the question you should ask.

[abixb]

/r/whooosh

[rgoulter]

'Maybe cheap but not free' is a good observation.

If I'm getting paid for the work, I'm happy to leverage the LLMs so I can do more. If I'm paying for the work, I expect more from it.

For hobbyist stuff, where I'm not expecting to receive money? LLMs let me do things I otherwise wouldn't have done.

I've agreed with thoughts like "the LLM wrote the code, surely it's not worth sharing" or "I could just have the LLM write my own version of that". I'd also wondered about my own personal projects, surely "an LLM could have written all of this". -- But how I feel about that changes a bit based on how much it'd take the LLMs to get the same output.

[yieldcrv]

I mostly agree, these are things that couldn't or weren't solved with abundant capital at all, and now they are being solved

it went from not having a price, to having one, and we are trying to retroactively transpose economic viability or economic existence to it from some parallel and prior time.