• porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 day ago

    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.

    • AnAmericanPotato@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 day ago

      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?

      • porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        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.