I don't know if I'd call myself a booster or skeptic. I'm loosely speaking all in in the office, but what would I actually spend?

On the one hand, my - I dunno, thought leader-y hat would say, why wouldn't I spend 10k/head on them. These tools are amazing, they could double someone's output.

But they also are these like infinite toys that can do anything, and you can spend a lot of money trying all the things. And does that actually provide value. Actually provide like rubber hits the road monetary value on a per-head basis. If you're really focused and good, probably? But if you're not disciplined. You can spend a bunch of money on tokens, then spend a bunch of money on the new features / services in production, and spend a lot of your colleagues time cleaning up that mess.

And this is all human stuff. This is all assuming the LLM works relatively perfectly at interpreting what you're trying to do and doing it.

So like. Does it actually provide the benefit of X dollars per engineer per year? Because it wouldn't have to, it could in fact go the opposite.

Stock up on dry beans and rice. See if your parents have a spare room. Don’t buy anything expensive. This bubble is gonna hurt.

Personally I think AI is super useful, but at my job the amount of progress we’ve made has basically ground to a halt compared to before AI.

The reason is that the people who they chose to lead the new, most innovative “AI initiatives” were the least innovative most corporate drone-y people I’ve ever met. The kind of people who in 2025 would unironically say stuff like “we need to work on our corporate synergies”.

They never wanted innovation, they just wanted people to toe the line for as long as possible until they could jump the sinking ship.

I must admit the idea has a lot of appeal, because there are people seeing good ROIs, so it does not seem to be the tool as much as the tool user

The hype train must go on, and I'm sure all employees are under strict NDAs, so we may never know.