Someone had to say it first - it’s no secret. A bit surprising that MS is early here.
Hahahahahhhahahahahaaha
g a s p
HhahahhahahahbahahhHahahahahahah
I wonder if anyone’s figured out a way to automate burning corporate money through the constant use of AI. Like a bot that just chain prompts the same five questions on loop, or something.
Someone sure did: https://github.com/dtnewman/burn-baby-burn
There are ways to make it cheaper. Starting with maybe not encouraging token-maxing.
Generally, unless you’re either a FOSS project or generating images/video, you have to be doing something very wrong to spend more on AI than on salaries.
Not really. LLMs are still completely unable to manage even medium scale architectures. At a corporate scale they’re literally just spending on trying to have the most context they can in the LLM. There’s no getting around it.
At which point this is about billionaires trying to escape accountability again. Regarding a work force, again.
Meh, right now, and only if you’re trying to replace the work force. At is current state, on a $30 a month Copilot plan you’ll already see a huge gain in efficiency with supervised coding and agents doing minor chores and maintenance.
The average coder isn’t better then opus 4.6. No, is not ready to run production code bases unsupervised. Yes, it’s absolutely ready to do many many simple tasks autonomous and more complex coding with supervision.
If you take even a week to try out this shit with an eye for what’s possible currently and have an ounce of common sense, I fail to see how folks don’t realize this will absolutely change how software is delivered. Yes humans will be involved but there will be much much less direct coding and a lot more supervision over multiple concurrent tasks that have had the time to delivery cut significantly.
I use these tools extensively, and they absolutely do not replace the need for a coder. The reality is that they’re fundamentally incapable of telling whether something is correct or not in the business sense. And Simply churning out a ton of wrong code really fast doesn’t actually help anybody.
They certainly can be a help for a developer. For example, I can fluently write code in any language now even if I’m not familiar with the stack or syntax. A skill that would’ve taken months of effort to build previously. But in terms of actual workflow, it’s not all that much faster because I still have to review what the tool is doing, and human comprehension is still the bottleneck in the whole process.
At least they’re being transparent about it. AI agent workflows can burn through far more tokens if they are used every day, so, normally, employees are still more affordable.
Sure, if they are using Copilot. Copilot is fucking garbage.
If they made a model that was half as good as Claude or Kimi or Qwen, they wouldn’t be in this mess.
The article is based off a false premise right from the get go, and their first line even points this out.
Microsoft has reportedly begun canceling most of its direct Claude Code licenses, according to The Verge, instead moving engineers toward using GitHub Copilot CLI.
This is just common sense. Why pay for Claude licenses when Claude’s models are in GitHub copilot, which they own and is integrated directly into their dev programs? It’s not scaling back AI.
And while the cost of ai compute can get very costly very quick, having talented developers using the AI tools enables them to get through mountains more work than they could without it, so it’s really paying for higher “productivity”/throughput.
