I’m a dev at work with 1 dev Jr dev under me.
We are in desperate need of another jr dev. But my work rather spend tokens.
So I setup agentic workflows which works 90% of the time. The 10% requires a me, a senior developer to babysit the workflow. My hourly cost are significantly higher.
After calculating the token usage and my hourly rate there are still some savings using the agentic workflows. But not much.
But we end up sacrificing is a pool of junior developers that I can train to be a senior. If I ever leave the company the entire company is screwed.
If I ever leave the company the entire company is screwed.
Yes. This has happened before, and it will happen again.
The time is coming soon for another bidding war on talent, and for all losers in the bidding war to pick up a lifetime subscription to “our software works for another month” from overpriced consulting agencies.
It is incredibly preventable, but you can’t fix average CEO levels of stupid.
Edit: The funny part is that this next time the bidding losers will also have an AI token passthrough surcharge that is “pinky promise, only the token costs of your contract and definitely not subsidizing Todd’s recreational use”.
How much of that use is “forced”? If people use google they’re using AI whenever they search
And one can’t control what their employer forces them to use. 40 hours per week I am forced to be all in regarding Microslop products.
Exactly: the numbers that are being cited by the companies which have a vested interest in pumping up LLM usage stats, even if it’s just the appearance thereof, are - surprise, surprise - fundamentally biased. And of course, the spineless fuckwit generation of journalists that most of the populace uncritically relies upon fail to dig any deeper than the first-order patterns in the data, or to point out the likely obvious biases.
This is not hard-hitting journalism. This is the appearance of hard-hitting journalism.
I’d like to see the data for that 49% of adults. It feels high and I wouldn’t put it past some companies to report mandatory AI bots as increased use by customers. I know Amazon requires it to do returns now, and I’ve had more than one site bring up the chat bot if you wanted access to content.
Number seems low to me…
People are using AI all the time without knowing it. Almost everyone is using the AI summary feature on every google search. There’s probably a bunch of AI bullshit enabled on your phone you dont know about.
My guess would be closer to 90%… only a small minority of people are truly tech savvy enough to know what’s going on under the hood, and truly dedicated 100% anti-AI to avoid using those sites/features.
it’s “% of U.S. adults who say they ever use AI chatbots like ChatGPT, Gemini or Copilot”. They didn’t ask about regular use, it’s the total number of people who have ever used a chatbot in any capacity. So with that framing 49% doesn’t surprise me. Of course the percentage of people who have ever used a chatbot is going to go up over time.
Of course the percentage of people who have ever used a chatbot is going to go up over time.
Yes, and crucially, it never goes down.
It’s like asking: “do you use a motor vehicle?” And then counting everyone who has ever been in a car, a truck, a bus, or potentially even a train as a yes. It plainly conflates active users with exploratory or incidental users.
The only reason to do such things is to inflate numbers because being honest about them makes it look bad.
Yup. I used Gemini like a year before it took off back when Google first sent out testing invites, because I wanted to see what it could do. That’s very different from active use, but this survey would count me as a regular user.
Although since Google shows me an AI summary whenever I search now, maybe I count as an active one anyways… along with everyone else who uses Google.
Unfortunately A LOT of less tech-savvy people absolutely love AI chatbots. All of my girlfriend’s family regularly ask ChatGPT random shit multiple times a day. Many of my friends have taken to using ChatGPT for every single online enquiry. It’s a worrying world.
It sort of makes sense, though. Google Search has been a hot pile of garbage for years. Researching something simple used to be quick and easy, but now you have to sift through endless SEO trash websites to find half an answer (or use a better search engine).
People go for the path of least resistance.
49%
This is going to be worse than leaded gas
At least this can be reversed, probably. Brain damage from lead is permanent.
Can be, but probably won’t be.:(
I’m hopeful that once people have to pay the unsubsidized cost of using LLMs, the bubble will pop and it’ll pass, like the blockchain bullshit.
I use ai chatbots like I used to use Google.
Google sucks now so AI chatbots tend to give direct answers at the moment. I know it’s a limited time before enshitification kicks in.
Do you click on the links to check if it’s actually true what they say?
Generally when accuracy matters I ask for a direct link with proof and for the specific part of the doc that is related. I either get exactly that or it’ll realize it’s hallucinating and can’t prove anything.
Hugely wasteful but unfortunately still faster than how unusable search has become.
Sure, it’s a wrong answer machine, but sometimes it’s right, and it’s almost always fast!
Only if it’s important. Usually it’s just trivial stuff.
Not op but I do with the google AI summary if I’m not able to reasonably verify its truthfulness against my own knowledge.
Of course chatbot use is rising when every shitty website replaced their support pages with one. What else can I do but use the stupid chatbot?
100% of Americans (rounded to the nearest 1%) participate in capitalism. How many of those actually support the system?
They’re probably been mandated to use AI at work. I know we’ve been mandated to do it, they haven’t actually started tracking you said yet but they’ve said they’re going to.
Very likely. Everyone I know who’s in a software development role is required to use these tools now.
If anything… 49% sounds low, considering how many of these shit-tier chat bots are becoming required. Nobody is choosing to use them, given the choice, and the companies that force it are all losing market share because of it.
I don’t pay for any, but I use AI. That doesn’t mean that I don’t think it is destructive to society. I would rather it fail and go away, but that doesn’t seem likely.
I use chatbots to make up strange stories about my former boss, who is incompetent, and share them with my former colleague. That’s pretty much the only thing I’ve ever used an LLM for, yet I’m counted in this statistic
Well… you should stop. Use that noggin and write some home grown anti-boss fanfic if you really want to keep down that road
If you would know the iq of those 16%, it would scare you. :)
Americans are stupid
sanitation — it’s fascinating how ‘benefit society’ is the core metric here, while chatbot use is almost double. I wonder if it’s less about direct societal benefit and more about practical, individual utility in daily tasks? People might not see AI solving world hunger, but they’re happy to use it for writing emails or debugging code. We’ve been looking at this from a developer’s perspective, trying to bridge that gap between perceived ‘benefit’ and actual useful application. More on that if helpful at https://cxgo.ai/l/dUJxR7P.
deleted by creator
