I have at least 1 colleague who does this. Has a Claude subscription despite being provided with github copilot.
I dont understand how the microsoft AI is so bad though. I dont use much AI thankfully but any experience I have had it is the worst. Chatgpt is better and from mt understanding it is the basis for it.
Github copilot is a totally different product from Microsoft copilot. Github copilot is just a harness for any model. I can use openai, anthropic, google, etc. models.
I presume you have to subscribe to the model to point github to it? Is that how repos show anthropic or whichever model is used as contributors?
I’m not smart enough for there to be this many people stupider than me.
Big same
Spending a few pounds a month on AI and sleep an hour longer or do whatever while an agent is doing my job, that doesn’t sound like the worst idea to me.
I’m sorry you’re like this.
According to the article, they use the gained time to do more work. This doesn’t seem like a win to me, they do more work but still are paid the same. In fact, if they pay for AI, then they get even less while providing more value to the corporation.
Reading this, all I can think about is all the confidential information that are probably getting leaked to the AI providers.
This is how you make your CISO cry.
These numbers seem somewhat mysterious to me, this would account for like 2-3% of all anthropic+openai’s revenue. I’m not sure exactly what that would mean but that can’t be good (for those companies) given how much those subscriptions are subsidised.
17% surveyed said they paid for their own AI tools.
Extrapolating that to the size of the UK workforce, that’s around 5-6 million people.
That’s ~£166-200 per person per year, which is less than the premium ChatGPT or Claude plans, but more than the entry-level paid plans. That passes the sniff test, though I still find it kind of hard to believe.
What I really want to know is how much person-time are these people indirectly wasting with sloppy work? Because I absolutely do not believe that many people can use AI effectively. I’ve seen too much to believe that. How much of this is just morging?
I wasn’t really disputing the numbers per se (although I do actually find it hard to believe 17% of workers pay for AI subscriptions…) but more wondering about, given that their combined revenues are somewhere around 50 billion USD, what the consequences of such a large fraction of that coming from heavily subsidised consumer use would be.
