alt Hacker NewsHear HN tell of it, Claude pays for itself 3× over.
Something tells me congitively it's making us misjudge how productive it's making us.
It's clearly massively increasing output, but did the market already soak up all that productivity and now it's not compensated?
If your salary is 50k. And Claude makes you 2x as productive, why aren't you earning 100k?
Why is it anyone can't afford $200/mo if it's truely increasing worker productivity?
There seems to be a paradox here.
Personally I switched to Z.ai and GLM quite some time ago. I've not noticed any decrease in quality or quantity of my work.
Replies
Because most people work for someone else and don't decide their own salaries. It's not doubling productivity, but even a 10-20% boost to productivity for a team of engineers means that, as a business, even $1k per month per seat is perfectly acceptable. For consumers and hobbyists that basically kills access.
yeah the more people who use it means less competitive edge you have. Benefits get devalued. And you're back to square one.
Agree about psychological impact outpacing likely actual impact, but that’s a relatively temporary phenomena as we are all adapting to the new way things work.
Productivity wise employment is far more than code production productivity in a vacuum, and productivity gains are rarely captured by employees (see famous chart on worker productivity where that correlation changed around 1970). I wouldn’t expect to see much in the next 1-2 years besides noticing effective teams increasing velocity of features.
I think people in forums like complaining about things and aren’t representative of the broader set of people who are just using the tools, so no real paradox. For vast majority of tech jobs, $200/mo is still an absolute steal in terms of what these tools offer. Only the dullest of companies would not realize this.
Fwiw in the 80s-90s computers also didn’t really register in productivity metrics. Qualitative changes occur long before accurate measurement catches up.