Once, I told a friend that it was stupid that Claude Code didn't have native IDE integration. His answer: “You don't need an IDE with Claude Code.”
I've begun to suspect response that this technology triggers a kind of religion in some people. The technology is obviously perfect, so that any problems you might have are because of you.
I find that I vastly prefer Gemini CLI to antigravity, despite the latter being an ide. Others feel the opposite. I believe it comes down to how you are using AI. It's great they both options exist for both types of people.
In many experience, many of the statistics these people use doesn't matter in the success of a business --- they are vanity metrics. But people use statistics, and especially the wrong statistics, to pass their agenda. Regardless, it's important to fix the statistics.
It upsets me to see YouTube Premium apologists despite all the hostile moves by YouTube. YouTube Premium is an extortion scheme. When there are enough paying customers, YouTube Premium will begin showing ads to them. They won't forget sugarcoating ads as being “unobtrusive” or “environment-supporting” or whatever. But guess what? If you don't want to see them, you can upgrade to YouTube Premium Plus and continue being an apologist.
One might also say it was unsustainable from the start, video is incredibly expensive to host and especially moderate.
All we're seeing right now is the beginning of the end of the ad-financed world. Someone has to pay the bills in the end and advertisement spending is on the way down, more and more of it is going to influencers/TTL instead of traditional ATL/BTL marketing.
While that may be true, subscription services are a capitalist move that’s pricing premium well above profit margins.
‘YouTube is failing because free tier is too expensive to be offset by ads’ and ‘YouTube premium is overly expensive’ can both be true. Shareholders care about maximising profits now, not overall product longevity.
> While that may be true, subscription services are a capitalist move that’s pricing premium well above profit margins.
Agree in principle, but I'd raise the serious question if Youtube is profitable in the first place. Every minute, 500 hours of video are uploaded [1], so the storage growth given 1.5 GB/h is at least (not including compression, duplication across multiple DCs, edge nodes, whatever) 750 GB / minute, 45 TB / hour or 1.080 TB / day.
At 10 $/TB (and that is a figure from before the AI boom making all costs explode) they have to spend 10.800 $ per day just in HDD costs, on top of that comes the server hardware, racks, switches, datacenter construction costs, and then the cost of running all of that - electricity for the servers, cooling, internet egress bandwidth (in total, all video sites made up 65% traffic of the entire Internet pre-AI boom).
It is estimated that YT makes about 36 billion $ of revenue [3], assuming a split of 50/50 with creators [4] that means 18 billion $ end up in Youtube as gross revenue. From that, take off 10% for music licenses (estimated [5]), 25% for taxes (assuming for simplicity an average 20% corporate tax plus 5% VAT), that leaves 11.7 billion $. And that's... not that much, given that R&D, infrastructure investment, advertising expenses, costs of preferential deals with device manufacturers and phone carriers ("zero rating"), operational expenses (i.e. electricity, bandwidth) and headcount (moderation!) haven't been taken into account.
In the end, I think that unlike 2015 [6] Youtube is actually profitable - but barely, nowhere near close to the profit margins of Google Ads. Certainly not enough to appeal to the stonk markets and beancounters, and that is what drives the ever increasing push for ads and premium.
As a side question... I think what irks Google the most is that individual "influencers" can make millions of dollars in monthly income from sponsorships but Google sees nothing of that money at all.
But think how hard it is for them to earn money to make up for all the billions they’ve used to create de facto monopoly in video space? Won’t someone think of poor capitalists trying to squeeze the niche dry?
> Ok, but the dev might still want to monetize, and we're back to the original question.
It's alright. Those who would like to monetize can. There are others who wouldn't and UBI would utilize that surplus talent, which otherwise had to perform tasks they weren't skilled at to earn a living.
I have friends who make such 50x productivity claims. They are correct if we define productivity as creating untested apps and games and their features that will never ship --- or be purchased, even if they were to ship. Thus, “productivity” has become just another point of contention.
100% agree. There are far more half-baked, incomplete "products" and projects out there now that it is easier to generate code. Generously, that doesn't necessarily equate to productivity.
I've agree with the fact that the last 10% of a project is the hardest part, and that's the part that Gen-AI sucks at (hell, maybe the 30%).
Interesting. What would make the workflow "agentic" in your mind? The AI implementing the task fully autonomously, never getting any human feedback?
To me "agentic" in this context essentially that the LLM has the ability to operate autonomously, so execute tools on my behalf, etc. So for example my coding agents will often run unit tests, run code generation tools, etc. I've even used my agents to fix issues with git pre-commit hooks, in which case they've operated in a loop, repeatedly trying to check in code and fixing errors they see in the output.
So in that sense they are theoretically capable of one-shot implementing any task I set them to, their quality is just not good enough yet to trust them to. But maybe you mean something different?
IMHO, agentic workflow is the autonomous execution of a detailed plan. Back-and-forth between LLM and developer is fine in the planning stage. Then, the agent is supposed to overcome any difficulties or devise solutions to unplanned situations. Otherwise, Cursor had been able to develop in a tight loop of writing and running tests, followed by fixing bugs, before “agentic” became a buzzword.
Perhaps “agentic” initially referred to this simple loop, but the milestone was achieved so quickly that the meaning shifted. Regardless, I could be wrong.
Yeah, I have no idea what the consensus definition of the term is, and I suppose I can't say for sure what OP meant. I haven't used Cursor. My understanding was that it exercises IDE functions but does not execute arbitrary shell commands, maybe I'm wrong. I've specifically had good experiences with the tools being able to run arbitrary commands (like the git debugging example I mentioned).
In my experience reading discussions like this, people seem to be saying that they don't believe that Claude Code and similar tools provide much of a productivity boost on relatively open ended domains (i.e. the AI is driving the writing of the code, not just assisting you in writing your own code faster). And that's certainly not my experience.
I agree with you that success with the initial milestone ("agent operates in a self-contained loop and can execute arbitrary commands") was achieved pretty quickly. But in my experience a lot of people don't believe this. :-)
When one is not happy with LLM output, agentic workflow rarely improves quality --- even though it may improve functionality. Now, instead of making sure that LLM is on track at each step, it goes down a rabbit hole, at which point it's impossible to review the work, let alone make it do it your way.
I've begun to suspect response that this technology triggers a kind of religion in some people. The technology is obviously perfect, so that any problems you might have are because of you.
reply