Mind sharing why you think that (genuinely curious)?
I think Ed hit some broad points, mostly (i) there were some breathless predictions (human level intelligence) that aren't panning out; (ii) oh wow they burn a ton of cash. A ton; (iii) and they're very Musky: lots of hype, way less product. Buttressed with lots of people saying that if AI did a thing, then that would be super useful; much less showing of the thing being done or evidence that it's likely to happen soon.
None of which says these tools aren't super useful for coding. But I'm missing the link between super useful for coding and a business making $100B / year or more which is what these investments need. And my experience is more like... a 20% speed improvement? Which, again, yes please... but not a fundamental rewriting of software economics.
Yeah; if this ends up as “some people and companies find this to be a useful programming tool and will pay a moderate amount for it”, then you have essentially recreated Borland, or Jetbrains, business-model-wise. The current valuations are based on something else altogether.
I think Ed hit some broad points, mostly (i) there were some breathless predictions (human level intelligence) that aren't panning out; (ii) oh wow they burn a ton of cash. A ton; (iii) and they're very Musky: lots of hype, way less product. Buttressed with lots of people saying that if AI did a thing, then that would be super useful; much less showing of the thing being done or evidence that it's likely to happen soon.
None of which says these tools aren't super useful for coding. But I'm missing the link between super useful for coding and a business making $100B / year or more which is what these investments need. And my experience is more like... a 20% speed improvement? Which, again, yes please... but not a fundamental rewriting of software economics.