I'm curious if they have any data showing whether it benefits productivity. I get by on the free tier of ChatGPT, and do 100% of the coding myself. It has never been a bottleneck, and I like to keep my skills sharp. AI helps in analyzing problems, getting quick answers to technical queries, reviewing code, etc. But running my own business I'm incredibly careful about expenses.

The whole world is working on this right now, but in some cases it can be extremely money saving. We had a couple of engineers who build a web portal to control some IoT devices because there wasn't one in the market. We've done similar things like that in the past, where we'd buy development from the outside. I can't give you exact costs, but getting it developed is around 5% of the price in AI and HUMAN hours, and then another 10% (bringing it to around 15%) for human hours rewriting it to run securely (and maintainable) in our cloud.

We're working on bringing the last 10% down by giving non-developers various AI skills such as a compliance module that can be pushed to specific Entra groups which will make sure their vibe code madness will stick to external dependencies we've approved. (There are still hard checks later).

For other tasks it's running on guesses, and sometimes you can save help people €1000 a week by teaching them how to use the AI better.

Yes, that sounds like a reasonable use case. But very different to the 100k a month by meta and microsoft.

We have some data and hard numbers.

The question is does it scale properly? Answer: it depends.

What is the value of a project going from six months to six hours? You can look at saving the man hours but how long can that go?

What about a project that takes $100k in tokens and generates $200MM? The difficult part is determining how much was AI is the multiplier.

We are finding both to be true while quantifying requires new accounting.

Does six hours factor in maintenance? Also, I think it depends on the project. I was able to get a a number of quantum computing programs knocked up in braket with the help of various AI tools to run some simulations It would have taken me months on my own, but I got knocked out in a few prompts with free AI tools. It's a real eye opener.

However, that's very different from building and maintaining a product that will be used for live customers, where you have to consider security implications. This is what we're talking about here for Meta and Microsoft, and it's what I do for my actual coding job.

The daily work has been accelerated by AI about 5-26x between individuals and teams. The security implications are real and we are at the same time finding old gaps only discovered using the tooling.

There is a level of trust on the model, the harnesses, and the operators that is required to move quickly.

To build that trust we are building systems and processes and getting the mindset that trust is the speed limit.

This is so ridiculous lol. not paying 20 bucks for a sub has to be a handicap

Not for me. I end up using chatgpt about once a week for my actual work, and maybe once a day for non work related things. Certainly if you need the subscription it's worth $20/month or whatever for a personal sub, but I don't seem to need that at the moment. I'm more curious about the $10k or $100k/month being value for money with people using it to do their entire coding.

the $100 and $200 plans can basically give you enough usage you can never write code by hand again. If you cant save yourself 25% of your time at least isnt worth $200 then maybe you should rethink this business

Coding is much less than 25% of my time, and as i said above I want as much coding as I can get. I do very well thank you.

We have projects that would burn through a subscription in a matter of hours. The scale of some people are doing is impressive.

It was the first limit impressed but majority of employees went nowhere near it.

Then they tightened it down again and again. Right now, it's at $2k/month or $24k/year and the model restrictions are and to go wider.

Still, most employees are not hitting the limit but enough are that there's an exception process

Just a cool million+ annual expense per headcount.

Notably, the limit per employee != actual average usage per employee!

I presume failing to hit your target (limit) saw you on a performance improvement plan, or even worse not invited to the pizza party.

Is that the sound of a deflating bubble I hear?

Microsoft bloat really knows no bounds.