I can't help but feel a little bit of ... pity for a lot of the people who call themselves "entrepreneurs" in this survey?
"I live hand to mouth, zero savings. If I use AI smarter, it may help me craft solutions to that cycle."
"Relaxing while my AI gets the work done, builds the wealth. It’s a shadow of me, just a very, very long one."
etc. I do believe AI currently accelerates businesses, especially in software dev. We work with a contractor who use Claude Code to reach incredible development pace for the size of their team, but also when we sit down with them in meetings they understand what's being created, they are able to argue their architectural choices, and they know how to propose business value.
You can't just buy a Claude subscription and have magically solve your problems. The thing is, as soon as Claude can do this without a business savvy human in the loop, then
a) everyone can do it, so you won't actually have any value to propose, and
b) Once the AI can run businesses without humans in the loop, you can bet your ass they will not out of the goodness of their hearts keep giving that ability away for $20.
In summary, AI if used to accelerate businesses _CAN_ be good. Buying it as a magic bullet to bring you out of poverty is probably a worse choice than just buying a lottery ticket.
That really reminds me of the "mashup" bubble in the late 2000's, when all services started to provide API and people were calling themselves "entrepreneurs" for combining 2 sources of data, like putting craigslist ads on a map.
Are you sure? We have many SaaS and final products which are just stitching together more SaaS. We have a very vocal part of the HN community always reminding you to buy a SaaS solution and connect it to your business instead of maintaining an in-house bespoke solution.
It’s funny how so much of market demand ends up just ends up boiling down to basic needs. Everyone’s always trying to hustle so they don’t have to worry about financial instability.
The quote about being temporarily embarrassed millionaires comes to mind….
I work sometimes in frontend and mostly in backend but I cant still comprehend why are we going backwards. shouldnt the websites be so optimized that they should be able to run in normal pc / smartphone rather than s23 is failing to load it. I guess at least bigger companies have that kind of resource for optimization but still not doing it why?
This has to be intentional, right? To reassure people that front-end developers still have a job? The data is interesting but the site itself is a complete embarrassment for several reasons.
"I’ve been working on a scientific project for 6 years... with Claude I was able to accomplish in 5 weeks what took me 6 years. I’m old... I estimate I have another 5 to 10 years and I’ll accomplish everything I want." Academic, Germany
"I live in a war zone... AI can not only give practical advice, but also emotionally calm me down during panic attacks. It can calm someone during a missile attack in one chat, and laugh with me about something silly in another. That’s what makes it not fragmented into a therapist/teacher/friend, but something whole." Ukraine
"If an AI had been in Stanislav Petrov’s position — the Soviet officer who prevented a potential nuclear war in 1983 — it would not have refused to launch." Academic, USA
"The humans in my life were telling me it was psychological. An AI chatbot was the only one who really listened and took me seriously — it pushed me to ask for specific tests... which came back 6 times higher than its supposed to be."
> "The humans in my life were telling me it was psychological. An AI chatbot was the only one who really listened and took me seriously — it pushed me to ask for specific tests... which came back 6 times higher than its supposed to be."
I can see this kind of survival-bias stories distorting the reality. To have millions of people asking for "specific tests" because AI told them seems problematic. One in a million will discover something, and that story will be enough to create the believe that is "worth doing the test that AI says" just in case. But...
> which came back 6 times higher than its supposed to be.
It has been proven that massive testing creates many false positives.
Tests may not be as reliable as though but they are good enough when other symptoms are accounted for. To randomly test people based on AI hallucinations can increase the number of unnecessary medication or even interventions.
"to generate copious amounts of source code that looks like it came from an offshore chop shop that whip cracked a thousand underpaid programmers to complete tasks under threat of violence so they'll fake the tests and cut corners but hide it with plausible bullshit"
In the abstract consumer point of view a car is exactly a faster horse. They both have high up front costs, both require continuous maintenance and fuel, and they're inconvenient to store when you're not using them.
Stationary gasoline engines were already changing the farm and reducing the head of horses necessary to feed a nation. It, too, was a faster horse for them.
Anyways.. it took the Detroit police to eventually deploy the first automatic stoplight. The real innovations seem to be often found downstream of the simple increases in capacity.
That all being said, it seems to me the current crop of LLMs haven't done this, their power and training budgets do not seem to be scaling favorably against adoption rates and profit margins. Absent a significant change in algorithm or computing substrate I don't think this strategy is the leap everyone hopes it will be.
Why do websites need to be so front end heavy? When a software company spend so much effort on fancy website, I don’t trust their product. Except anthropic i guess.
Anecdotally, the concern I hear from many is that the current positioning of AI as labor replacement doesn't benefit them at all. An expensive AI which simply takes your job or forces you to work harder is categorically worse for people's quality of life.
What consumer benefits is ai driving? at least with industrial automation consumers benefited from new technologies, cheaper goods, and new job categories.
In case someone at Anthropic reads this.. if you find some way to make software developer salaries go up as a result of using your tools, or find some way to fast forward society to that stage of the effect of AI, you’ll have a lot of fans, and even faster adoption.
It would be great if there was some internal “make this benefit Main Street and knowledge workers” department, helping find ways for workers or creators to capture the value of some of the increased productivity.
> It would be great if there was some internal “make this benefit Main Street and knowledge workers” department, helping find ways for workers or creators to capture the value of some of the increased productivity.
If they wanted to do this, they could put their models in a public trust for the public's access and benefit in research, education, etc. Then it could be licensed, pay a dividend like a sovereign wealth fund, etc.
Considering that they copy and train on the sum total of all human creativity, a public trust is something that would be in line with both the spirit, and first and fourth considerations, of fair use doctrine:
1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
That way everyone is rewarded with the benefits of running a model that was trained on everyone's creations.
I don't need software developer salaries to go up. That would be kind of selfish and narrow minded.
What I need instead is something that takes the burden off my entire society and gives them a breather. Universal health care to start. They could also use a higher minimum wage, and lower housing costs.
Is it more selfish and narrow minded to wish for a "utopia" that is economically unsound and happens to be your personal preference, or to wish for productive workers' salaries to increase - something with an actual track record of improving any society it occurs in?
All perl programmers should be wishing for ponies, that's definitely less narrow minded.
It doesn't sound like utopia to me, hence the quotation marks. Eminently achievable, but not actually good. Only those engaged in utopian thinking - with a heavy slice of ignorance of basic economics and history - would think it is utopia or leads to it.
Universal healthcare is very sound economically. Costs are lower and outcomes better than under private insurance, and overhead is dramatically reduced.
This is not true, the Kings Fund publishes a report that the Guardian fauns over whenever it comes out because it shows how "cost effective" the NHS is, yet if you read it you find that actual health outcomes are generally worse than other, insurance based systems. Give me wealth and health over a postcode lottery produced by utopianists.
>if you find some way to make software developer salaries go up
This is quite easy. Just optimize the models to do reviews and bug finding. This would make developers (who normally hate reviews) quite happy and let them do more coding, thus delivering more value and possibly earning more...
It’s often lamented that some employees have a difficult case to argue for their impact on the bottom line, and as a result probably get paid a lower fraction of their value to the business than other roles where the link is easy to measure.
I can at least “imagine” a model that tries to crack this nut.
But your value to a company doesn’t just come from your impact, but how tough you are to replace, how much others value your skills, etc.
Nike’s logo designer was paid $35. One model says she should’ve gotten hundreds of thousands of dollars, because of what her work product went on to become. Another model of the value says it was worth $35 because that’s what she agreed to.
If, as an employee, you think you’re massively undervalued for the impact you generate, go out to the market and either get another job or start your own business making widgets - either you’ll get that pay bump you expect, or you’ll see you actually were relying on a lot of other supporting mechanisms to generate that value.
The intrinsic satisfaction of increasing the wealth of shareholders. We should all be happy to devote ourselves to getting them more, nothing is more important than that.
My kids like to use AI to discuss things they learned in school in greater depth, and from different angles than they learned in the textbook. They can also ask "What if" and "Why not" questions from this infinitely patient teacher.
At least with search engines, or even libraries, you're aware that there are many authors of varying reliability and the publications/sites might not be reputable.
AI chat bots will summarize the top N web search results as if they're fact, weaving them into seemingly coherent narratives, all while reassuring the user that their questions are really good and they're learning a lot.
Also it's better not to answer, but flip the question back and let your kid think through it, offer hypothesis, and so on, helping him problem solve, recall, and all that.
I guess you could argue that there should be cheaper software, but most software people interact with is free/ad supported. Where it is paid, it's already a race to to the bottom.
Basically consumers don't really pay for software in the first place, and the leverage from labour companies get through software is already through the roof even before AI. Will much change for consumers of software?
There is a practical upper bound on how much labor can be replaced before deflation becomes a problem. AI firms risk spoiling the pot if no other business model is discovered.
A classic marketing piece by showing thought leadership based on survey data. I'm not saying they're lying, I don't think they are. I am saying they are biased and have a conflict of interest on this one. I've seen it at my previous employer as well (a F500 company).
To remove some of that bias, I'd recommend to get an independent body (probably some university) in and let them do the interpretation and write the article.
I just want people to see the tactic for what it is. I really like Claude Opus 4.6 but this just screams "marketing" to me. I wouldn't say it's wrong, it's good to have these discussions and I'd encourage AI companies to say what they have to say. I would say: more independent sources are needed (and not another AI company).
> AI should learn to say two things: ‘I don’t know’ and ‘you’re wrong.’
My guess is, the next evolutionary step of LLM's should be yet another layer on top of reasoning, which should be some form of self-awareness and theory of mind. The reasoning layer already has some glimpses of these things ("The user wants ...") but apparently not enough to suppress generation and say "I don't know".
I don't like describing countries like this but: a bit underdeveloped countries (compared to North American and European countries) seem to have a more positive view on AI.
I am disappointed in how vague the classifications are for what people want. 'professional excellence ' anyone? I was expecting more concrete responses, but I guess since it's working with what we told it, generalities are prevalent in a write up. If I keep looking, perhaps at the quotes, I might find more concrete answers.
And just keep scrolling, you can make it to the story eventually.
Yeah I want to know how many people are using AI for social purposes; to provide the role of a friend. But I don’t know what category that would be under.
They do not find it favorable all of the time. If you look into the "What people are concerned about" section, these same people will call out the "Unreliability" as a top-1 concern. So, you can be excited and critical of the technology at the same time. To me this is a more worthy indicator than people who are on either of the extremes, highly critical of the tech or not critical at all.
> These are active Claude users who'd already found enough value to keep using AI, and our interview asked first for positive visions for AI and then for concerns that would counter their vision.
It's like those recipe sites that have 5 pages of nice photos and background story and side tracks and whatnot as the author waxes verbose, so they need to put a 'Jump to recipe' button in so people don't just click 'Back' immediately.
Except this time for an article.
I can't tell if 'skip the junk' is good (junk can be skipped!) or bad (maybe this means there's too much junk on the page?)
> “It’s much easier for me to learn without being judged—just friendly feedback. It's harder with friends or family to get that.”
White collar worker, Brazil
I'm not going to claim I know this response was written by an AI, but it's very suspicious. I would like to hear about how Anthropic ensured that the survey responses were provided by real human beings using their own words.
I mean, I don't know.. those quotes seem way too clean from what I'd expect of normal people chatting. Also the use of em-dash. Does it say somewhere that it's an LLM that has compressed the sentiments of the conversations to create these quotes? I wouldn't be surprised if it was.
Not 81,000 as it says in the title. I know I'm being nitpicky, but I wouldn't round up to 81k. Surely the 'important number' in this case is 80, so you would round down to that. Then let the reader pleasantly discover you had interviewed ~500 more than you stated.
It's funny to me when someone does this sort of minor hyperbole that's verging on lying - you have to wonder what is going on.
"I live hand to mouth, zero savings. If I use AI smarter, it may help me craft solutions to that cycle."
"Relaxing while my AI gets the work done, builds the wealth. It’s a shadow of me, just a very, very long one."
etc. I do believe AI currently accelerates businesses, especially in software dev. We work with a contractor who use Claude Code to reach incredible development pace for the size of their team, but also when we sit down with them in meetings they understand what's being created, they are able to argue their architectural choices, and they know how to propose business value.
You can't just buy a Claude subscription and have magically solve your problems. The thing is, as soon as Claude can do this without a business savvy human in the loop, then a) everyone can do it, so you won't actually have any value to propose, and b) Once the AI can run businesses without humans in the loop, you can bet your ass they will not out of the goodness of their hearts keep giving that ability away for $20.
In summary, AI if used to accelerate businesses _CAN_ be good. Buying it as a magic bullet to bring you out of poverty is probably a worse choice than just buying a lottery ticket.
That didn't last long!
The quote about being temporarily embarrassed millionaires comes to mind….
Some quotes that stuck out to me:
"I’ve been working on a scientific project for 6 years... with Claude I was able to accomplish in 5 weeks what took me 6 years. I’m old... I estimate I have another 5 to 10 years and I’ll accomplish everything I want." Academic, Germany
"I live in a war zone... AI can not only give practical advice, but also emotionally calm me down during panic attacks. It can calm someone during a missile attack in one chat, and laugh with me about something silly in another. That’s what makes it not fragmented into a therapist/teacher/friend, but something whole." Ukraine
"If an AI had been in Stanislav Petrov’s position — the Soviet officer who prevented a potential nuclear war in 1983 — it would not have refused to launch." Academic, USA
"The humans in my life were telling me it was psychological. An AI chatbot was the only one who really listened and took me seriously — it pushed me to ask for specific tests... which came back 6 times higher than its supposed to be."
I can see this kind of survival-bias stories distorting the reality. To have millions of people asking for "specific tests" because AI told them seems problematic. One in a million will discover something, and that story will be enough to create the believe that is "worth doing the test that AI says" just in case. But...
> which came back 6 times higher than its supposed to be.
It has been proven that massive testing creates many false positives.
This happened during covid: https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n1411/rr
Tests may not be as reliable as though but they are good enough when other symptoms are accounted for. To randomly test people based on AI hallucinations can increase the number of unnecessary medication or even interventions.
The number 1 ask from the interviewed cohort is « professional excellence »
It is telling about what we prioritize in our society.
I am usually an optimistic person, but I struggle to see how this does not end up with more misery and worse lifestyle all around.
Stationary gasoline engines were already changing the farm and reducing the head of horses necessary to feed a nation. It, too, was a faster horse for them.
Anyways.. it took the Detroit police to eventually deploy the first automatic stoplight. The real innovations seem to be often found downstream of the simple increases in capacity.
That all being said, it seems to me the current crop of LLMs haven't done this, their power and training budgets do not seem to be scaling favorably against adoption rates and profit margins. Absent a significant change in algorithm or computing substrate I don't think this strategy is the leap everyone hopes it will be.
What consumer benefits is ai driving? at least with industrial automation consumers benefited from new technologies, cheaper goods, and new job categories.
It would be great if there was some internal “make this benefit Main Street and knowledge workers” department, helping find ways for workers or creators to capture the value of some of the increased productivity.
If they wanted to do this, they could put their models in a public trust for the public's access and benefit in research, education, etc. Then it could be licensed, pay a dividend like a sovereign wealth fund, etc.
Considering that they copy and train on the sum total of all human creativity, a public trust is something that would be in line with both the spirit, and first and fourth considerations, of fair use doctrine:
That way everyone is rewarded with the benefits of running a model that was trained on everyone's creations.You'll either need to freelance, or start a company (or maybe a co-op) to capture the new value created by your ability to leverage AI.
It won't be much different to when a company buys more CNC machines and the employees don't get any more money despite producing way more parts.
What I need instead is something that takes the burden off my entire society and gives them a breather. Universal health care to start. They could also use a higher minimum wage, and lower housing costs.
That already exists in any other country but the USA. Aim higher.
All perl programmers should be wishing for ponies, that's definitely less narrow minded.
That's just the system we have, but slightly better and completely achievable.
This is quite easy. Just optimize the models to do reviews and bug finding. This would make developers (who normally hate reviews) quite happy and let them do more coding, thus delivering more value and possibly earning more...
I have no clue what this would look like other than maybe an investment fund for people creating apps/businesses based on Claude tools.
I can at least “imagine” a model that tries to crack this nut.
Nike’s logo designer was paid $35. One model says she should’ve gotten hundreds of thousands of dollars, because of what her work product went on to become. Another model of the value says it was worth $35 because that’s what she agreed to.
If, as an employee, you think you’re massively undervalued for the impact you generate, go out to the market and either get another job or start your own business making widgets - either you’ll get that pay bump you expect, or you’ll see you actually were relying on a lot of other supporting mechanisms to generate that value.
The intrinsic satisfaction of increasing the wealth of shareholders. We should all be happy to devote ourselves to getting them more, nothing is more important than that.
My kids like to use AI to discuss things they learned in school in greater depth, and from different angles than they learned in the textbook. They can also ask "What if" and "Why not" questions from this infinitely patient teacher.
AI chat bots will summarize the top N web search results as if they're fact, weaving them into seemingly coherent narratives, all while reassuring the user that their questions are really good and they're learning a lot.
That might not apply to the kinds of parents that hang out here though
Basically consumers don't really pay for software in the first place, and the leverage from labour companies get through software is already through the roof even before AI. Will much change for consumers of software?
So... not much benefit either.
To remove some of that bias, I'd recommend to get an independent body (probably some university) in and let them do the interpretation and write the article.
I just want people to see the tactic for what it is. I really like Claude Opus 4.6 but this just screams "marketing" to me. I wouldn't say it's wrong, it's good to have these discussions and I'd encourage AI companies to say what they have to say. I would say: more independent sources are needed (and not another AI company).
I can tell you the questions are biased from the start. That study has to be redone entirely.
> AI should learn to say two things: ‘I don’t know’ and ‘you’re wrong.’
My guess is, the next evolutionary step of LLM's should be yet another layer on top of reasoning, which should be some form of self-awareness and theory of mind. The reasoning layer already has some glimpses of these things ("The user wants ...") but apparently not enough to suppress generation and say "I don't know".
And just keep scrolling, you can make it to the story eventually.
I'm much more curious about the results of 80k people who don't use AI regularly.
01. Professional excellence 18.8%
02. Personal transformation 13.7%
03. Life management 13.5%
04. Time freedom 11.1%
05. Financial independence 9.7%
06. Societal transformation 9.4%
07. Entrepreneurship 8.7%
08. Learning & growth 8.4%
09. Creative expression 5.6%
I find this highly suspicious. I'm sure there would be at least 10% who respond "I want it to go away".
> These are active Claude users who'd already found enough value to keep using AI, and our interview asked first for positive visions for AI and then for concerns that would counter their vision.
It's like those recipe sites that have 5 pages of nice photos and background story and side tracks and whatnot as the author waxes verbose, so they need to put a 'Jump to recipe' button in so people don't just click 'Back' immediately.
Except this time for an article.
I can't tell if 'skip the junk' is good (junk can be skipped!) or bad (maybe this means there's too much junk on the page?)
I'm not going to claim I know this response was written by an AI, but it's very suspicious. I would like to hear about how Anthropic ensured that the survey responses were provided by real human beings using their own words.
Not 81,000 as it says in the title. I know I'm being nitpicky, but I wouldn't round up to 81k. Surely the 'important number' in this case is 80, so you would round down to that. Then let the reader pleasantly discover you had interviewed ~500 more than you stated.
It's funny to me when someone does this sort of minor hyperbole that's verging on lying - you have to wonder what is going on.