Unless you predicted AI and Crypto then it was just really good, not 100x. It 20x from 2005-2020 but ~500x from 2005-2025
And if you truly did predict that Nvidia would own those markets and those markets would be massive, you could have also bought Amazon, Google or heck even Bitcoin. Anything you touched in tech really would have made you a millionaire really.
Survivors bias though. It's hard to name all the companies that failed in the dot com bust, but even among the ones that made it through, because they're not around any more, they're harder to remember than the winners. But MCI, Palm, RIM, Nortel, Compaq, Pets.com, Webvan all failed and went to zero. There's an uncountable number of ICOs and NFTs that ended up nowhere. SVB isn't exactly an tech stock but they were strongly connected to it and they failed.
It is interesting to think about crypto as a stairstep that Nvidia used to get to its current position in AI. It wasn't games > ai, but games > crypto > ai.
When will this come to pass? OpenAI has many orders of magnitude more conversational data and Anthropic just keeps catching up. Until there is some evidence (OpenAI winning, or Google winning rather than Open Source catching up), I don't belive this is true.
Also doesn't add much, but I was waiting for this comment. It makes me laugh that non-capitalization (or non-conformative structure) is the bane of HN's existence.
If one makes $150 an hour and it saves them 1.25 hours a month, then they break even. To me, it's just a non-deterministic calculator for words.
If it getting things wrong, then don't use it for those things. If you can't find things that it gets right, then it's not useful to you. That doesn't mean those cases don't exist.
I don't think this math depends on where that time is saved.
If I do all my work in 10 hours, I've earned $1500. If I do it all in 8 hours, then spend 2 hours on another project, I've earned $1500.
I can't bill the hours "saved" by ChatGPT.
Now, if it saves me non-billing time, then it matters. If I used to spend 2 hours doing a task that ChatGPT lets me finish in 15 minutes, now I can use the rest of that time to bill. And that only matters if I actually bill my hours. If I'm salaried or hourly, ChatGPT is only a cost.
And that's how the time/money calculation is done. The idea is that you should be doing the task that maximizes your dollar per hour output. I should pay a plumber, because doing my own plumbing would take too much of my time and would therefore cost more than a plumber in the end. So I should buy/use ChatGPT only if not using it would prevent me from maximizing my dollar per hour. At a salaried job, every hour is the same in terms of dollars.
My firm's advertised billing rate for my time is $175/hour as a Sr Software Engineer. I take home ~$80/hour, accounting for benefits and time off. If I freelanced I could presumably charge my firm's rate, or even more.
This is in a mid-COL city in the US, not a coastal tier 1 city with prime software talent that could charge even more.
Ironically, the freelance consulting world is largely on fire due to the lowered barrier of entry and flood of new consultants using AI to perform at higher levels, driving prices down simply through increased supply.
I wouldn't be surprised if AI was also eating consultants from the demand side as well, enabling would-be employers to do a higher % of tasks themselves that they would have previously needed to hire for.
That's what they are billed at, what they take home from that is probably much lower. At my org we bill folks out for ~$150/hr and their take home is ~$80/hr
On the one hand, there's the moral argument: we need janitors and plumbers and warehouse workers and retail workers and nurses and teachers and truck drivers for society to function. Why should their time be valued less than anyone elses?
On the other hand there's the economic argument: the supply of people who can stock shelves is greater than the supply of people who can "create value" at a tech company, so the latter deserve more pay.
Depending on how you look at the world, high salaries can seem insane.
I don’t even remotely understand what you’re saying is wrong. Median salaries are significantly higher in the US compared to any other region. Nominal and PPP adjusted AND accounting for taxes/social benefits. This is bad?
Those jobs you referenced do not have the same requirements nor the same wages…seems like your just clumping all of those together as “lower class” so you can be champion of the downtrodden
I don't know anyone who does something and at first says, "This will be a mistake" Maybe they say, "I am pretty sure this is the right thing to do," then they make a mistake.
If it's easier mentally, just put that second sentence in from of every chatgpt answer.
Yeah the Junior dev gets better, but then you hire another one that makes the same mistakes, so in reality, on an absolute basis, the junior dev never gets any better.
But for this boiletplate creating a few snippets in your code generally works better. Especially if things change you dont have to retrain your model.
Thats my main problem: for trivial things it works but isnt much better than conventional tools, for hard things it just produces incorrect code such that writing it from scratch barely makes a difference
What would it look like if I could have 3-500 snippets instead of 30. Those 300 are things that I do all over my codebase e.g. same basic where query but in the context of whatever function I am in, a click handler with the correct types for that purpose, etc.
There is no way I can have enough hotkeys or memorize that much, and I truly can't type faster than I can hit tab.
I don't need it to think for me. Most coding (front-end/back-end web) involves typing super basic stuff, not writing complex algorithms.
This is where the 10-20% speed-up comes in. On average I am just typing 20% faster by hitting tab.
reply