I start to think that AI might be a net negative on the economy. It consumes an enormous amount of resources, just to keep doing what we did before.

Laying off people also doesn't reduce cost as much as it might look like. There is a lot of hidden cost shared by everyone (also the companies that did the lay offs are hit by them). Unemployed people still have to eat and pay rent, and someone is paying for that. They spend less money on services and goods, which affects every company in the end.

AI is great, but I think it got too big.

Just my thoughts, not backed by any data. I'm not even sure I'm right.

Maybe AI could now optimize all the server software made when RAM was cheap.

AI investors bet on the high return in the next 10-15 years, they have no reasons to care if everything which require semiconductors will become much more expensive in the process.

The use of AI is still optional.

> is faster too, but the question: is it worth the price?

Those aren't the only metrics, quality and efficiency is also important. AIslop is of higher quality than devslop on average.

Prices aren't high for the current capabilities or demand. It is all a bet on the future.

AI could theoretically also be used to optimize existing code instead of producing new features, allowing existing tech to run on lighter hardware. Rent me an rpi if the software is fast.

Not really. You can still not use AI. The solid data is that RAM is more expensive than before… so there’s a small case to be made there because of you need a new computer you can’t avoid that.

> Can the users consume new features in that pace?

It's pretty clear by now that coding productivity increases by 10-15% with AI. Given coding is only a small part of the developer's job, there's just nothing new to consume.

The only change I have noticed in software since LLMs have hit the mass market is degradation of software quality, not increase in feature releases.

Prices have increased for literally nothing.