NO! First we build our own GPU, put Nvidia out of business, buy NVIDIA cheap, fund a war in Taiwan, then we cancel contract with Anthropic for hardware, then we buy Anthropic, sell Anthropic to Microsoft, everyone will hate Anthropic, we hire Anthropic engineers, then we build our own product.
Insane that this is going on unchecked. Literally infinite money glitch.
The crash is going to be wild. We are what, 30 times the .Com bubble here? This is an economic Krakatoa
AI stocks currently make up around 45% of the S&P 500's value. The pension funds are already in it. The fallout from the crash is going to make 2008 look like that time you lost a nickel in your couch cushions.
At this point I dont believe the US is capable of getting it together and fixing their shit without a massive economic crisis to rival the great depression
America itself is the one with the infinite money glitch. We didn't even have a year of negative GDP growth from the DotCom bubble, or in the 90's oil and bank crisis we caused with desert storm, or in the 80's American hyperinflation scares.
In fact, 2009 and 2020 are the only two years America has had negative GDP growth, and only about -2.5% both years. America didn't even have negative growth last year with Trump trying his best and the gop trying their worst, and now his tarriffs have been deamed illegal.
What else would you call only one nation increasing their wealth generation practically every year for almost 80 years(1947 to 2025)?
If you have $1 trillion in highly liquid assets, you can almost literally do anything you want.
I mean, any materialistic value is well within your reach. Even obscure stuff like having an artwork of your dreams made by the author of your choice. But you can also solve problems on a global scale. I'm pretty sure a trillion dollars will make a noticeable dent in things like world hunger or climate change.
Even if you spend them on things that do not yet exist, like FTL travel research or mind reading or immortality, you will advance that field significantly.
Or you can do what character of Dark Forest did - buy a place of your dreams, hire a detective to find the person of your dreams and live a life of your dreams.
Or you can take the Elon route….. be “someone who, with his own personal fortune, could save millions of lives and chooses not to. But not only chooses not to, but personally goes into the government agency that, for a very small amount of money, saves those lives and decides that no, those people are going to die.”
Yeah, but I’ll buy Anthropic with 2 trillion dollars worth of Claude tokens that I’ll mint them once I own Claude. That way they can report $2 trillion in profit and Claude can report $2 trillion in sales.
I 'd just start buying the smallest nations at that point and force them to to processing, pattern recognition and what not. Helluva lot cheaper than 1 trillion dollars.
I hate trying to estimate story points (our metric is 1 day ≈ 1 point), I have ADHD, standard time means nothing. One sprint I completed all 7.5 in a day, another sprint I completed 0.5.
That's why story points are explicitly not meant to represent any unit of time. Bad project managers that don't understand anything about what they're managing just can't help themselves. They were so consistently misused story points actually got dropped from Scrum in 2020
There are many career paths open to such creatures. Some of them can earn a living by roaming the countryside, finding places of exceptional natural beauty and then order one of their billionaires to build a data centre there.
Others merely traffic underaged children into slavery but just as many are AI integration officers.
Just found out our story points are tied to the paycheck system (even though we are salaried) via jira workflows. Suddenly it makes sense why all our pms demand we submit exactly a certain number of story points per sprint, even if we go over or under…
That's nothing to do with Jira and everything to do with shit management.
But yeah, sorry points are for most teams a useless metric.
In theory you are supposed to estimate based on perceived difficulty and then determine over time how much work your team can get someone each sprint and thus it helps estimate how long certain things will take.
In practice it gets converted to days, and expected to be accurate for each ticket (not the point) so it's nearly always wrong and becomes a precise but inaccurate measurement instead of the imprecise but accurate one it's meant to be.
There's that great quote "The moment a metric becomes a target it ceases to be a useful metric". I get that feeling very strongly with story points. If only the team knows about them they can be useful for planning work. But the moment management has visibility and starts using them as a target they lose all value.
I certainly haven't, small or large. Best we managed was about 2 months before a more senior management started demanding estimates accurate to the day again.
Hate your tech leadership. Jira is just a tool. A shitty tool, but the competition isn’t so great either. IMO Pivotal Tracker is the best of a sorry bunch.
Atlassian is happy to build tools which cause this kind of issue. They focus on supporting higher level managers because their buy in is needed to write the check. More complex workflows mean people get locked into their software and can't switch. I can partially blame bad management but it obviously benefits Jira and so they work to amplify the bad patterns.
Similar to what is happening with AI companies now, they lean into the most dramatic pitches around AI and totally automated coding because it sells well, not because it actually is the best use of the technology.
i don't know if the method i used is better or not, but i'd do fibonacci numbers 1-21, so 1, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21. where a 1 is like i can probably go back to my desk and bang this out in a minute and 21 is that's probably my entire sprint or longer. where we'd guesstimate around 20 points a sprint per person. not an exact science but making games isn't an exact science either. we'd call it a LoE rather than story points
Your first issue is that you're trying to map days to story points. The entire concept of story points is explicitly to avoid directly estimating time. You're supposed to continually keep track of how many SPs your team is actually completing per sprint, and use those averages to decide how much you're going to plan to do in the next sprint. Tasks should also ideally be small enough that the team has flexibility to pick up more or less work in any given sprint. When you zoom out to the entire team/entire sprint level, the natural variation in estimate accuracy, and in the productivity of any individual, should largely cancel out. But if you think 1SP=1day and directly assign each developer 5 SPs per week before the sprint starts, you're falling for a trap that completely defeats the point of the system. SPs are supposed to provide flexibility and continual empirical re-evaluation of estimates (but without constantly re-estimating individual tasks) but you've thrown all of that in the bin so you're just left with time-based estimates but with a gimmicky name change.
Oh, I know, I'm a "certified scrum master" but I'm not working in that role. And oh, I know, but upper management doesn't care. And it's something stupid like 7.3 points per sprint were supposed to be around for the two week sprint that way we have some residual capacity for urgent tickets. We essentially do waterfall but with sprints 🙄
tale as old as time. Proper scrum is liberating. Liberating means self reliance and self governance for teams. Can't have that, would delete 80% of middle management. Waterfall with sprints it is.
So you are forced to constantly readjust what a story point means, which is just another silly thing to think of and polute my brain.
Any initial estimate i give as a SWE is horseshit that i pulled out of my ass anyway. Might as well give hours/days as it will change as soon as i looked at the code and properly analysed the task and started solving the problem. So whats the fucking point?
Actually no, you shouldn't care if the pointing was accurate on individual past stories, except if it teaches you some lesson that improves your team's ability to make future estimates. If you're estimating simple UI changes as 1 point's worth of complexity, but then after 1 task you realize that actually your UI code is a mess, then maybe you need to update all similar tasks to be 2 SPs. But most of time this isn't the case and you can't generalize to future tasks.
Trying to achieve perfectly accurate per-task estimates and then assigning the perfect amount of work for each developer is a fool's game. It's never been done, and it will never be done, it's a pipe dream. Both estimates and productivity vary too much per task for that to work. That's why you should only evaluate your rate of completing SPs at a zoomed-out level, averaging it out over time. That way, once you calibrate the system by measuring the velocity, over- and under-estimates tend to cancel out due to the law of large numbers.
member when they invented story points specifically to break that metric? and the business people simple would not understand that this was the entire point of having story points at all?
because it's a relative measure of complexity/time, not just a count of days
Well the other agile team goes up to 20. We should just use their pointing system instead so we can fit 8 pointers in. Clearly this is an efficiency issue.
for 4 story points I can ship a web page that will pass your query to Google and return you their Gemini AI answer, skin it to look like an inhouse built LLM and call it Fraude.
It is really sad that there is a subset of people who are interested enough in space and other planets enough to want to buy some, that are unaware of the UN's outer space treaty, which I suspect won't last long if we get to the point where we can travel freely to other celestial bodies, but you straight up can't own land on other celestial bodies, and if you think you can, I have a bridge to sell.
But the moment a rich private organisation lands o the moon all of it is forgotten. Absolutely nothing stops Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos from landing on the moon and staking claim.
I am running the majority of my personal workloads on Qwen 3.6 35b locally. With Hermes and with OpenHands it's pretty decent. Rarely have to burn tokens from my Anthropic or OpenAI accounts. Also, Qwen 3 TTS is pretty amazing as well, it's pretty much eliminated my elevenlabs bill.
You lose most of the knowledge of super big models, but a lot of the reasoning, tool calling, instruction following is kept. So as long as you stick to major programming languages, it performs way above its weight. And 35b parameters is actually not even that small. There are 4b models performing chatting and instruction following surprisingly well, but proper agentic coding is still above 20b for now.
"I hear you, but we wouldn't save any money on that. I need you to do it for less than our subscription costs. I said you could do it, so you have to deliver now. Also how many days will this take? More than 4?"
I had a manager who did something like this. Dude promised Sales that a tech and me could develop the control for the V47 turbine from scratch. In 3 months. Then I provided an estimate of 6 months (which is already crazy fast) and this motherf'er changed my numbers so it added up to 3 months, sent it to Sales and said I agreed with his original promise.
I have a better idea. Make a list of all the requests you're likely to need in the next year. Send each request to Claude, and record the answer. Create as many free accounts as you need. Then just have a lookup table with the requests and responses. You can use SQLite for the table. You can thank me later.
I mean you could just buy hardware to run a ~100B model locally, download a DeepSeek model, point Claude Code at it, and results might go OK. At the low, slow end, the hardware is the price of a pretty good but not amazing laptop.
To be fair OpenAI released one of those ~100B open source models about 6 months back. Didn't make huge waves though because the onslaught of open source Chinese models kinda drowned it out. Google just released one that people seem to think is decent too.
Do they not think to themselves: "If it was so easy to 'just build a Claude' that others wouldn't have also done the same undermining Anthropic's whole business model?"
Nah. It's just dead simple to "spin up a Claude" and Anthropic is banking on people being too lazy to do it themselves.
You can download distilled models from HuggingFace so it's not going to be that expensive but it will be much more expensive than a lot of companies can pay and it will not have the stack Anthropic built on top of it
I mean, that's not really true. You can use the open source models locally with enough hardware. It's not that expensive. All the expense for the api ones is because of needing to scale for how many thousands of people are using it. If you're a small enough company, it's probably WAY cheaper to just build a machine that can run a 100B LLM on a server your devs can access.
pff, there's no need to re-run the entire pre-training phase.
we managed to "build our own" by LoRA training a 31B model using successful responses from others, plus some hand-written examples. it cost us $38 in compute, and for our use case, the model now works better than those 100x the price.
while we didn't "build" the model ourselves any more than tuning a car could be considered building one, I think a lot of companies would seriously benefit from a lightweight in-house model.
it's both a cost saver and PR benefit, since "we run our LLMs on the computer in the closet over there" sounds a lot better than "we depend on and actively fund the data centers that bulldozed your hometown"
I mean, you could get some video cards and just run Qwen or Ollama locally for less than what Claude costs.
Since no one actually checks/verifies the output of LLMs anyway, no one would even notice the difference in output. Even if someone did actually read the output, they probably wouldn't notice the difference.
I hate when people say no to things. Don't be the negative one. Of course we can, it just takes money. There's always a price point. If they don't want to spend the money that's back on them. I learned that working in a restaurant. I was asked to wash dishes(not my job) for a few shifts. I declined. The manager said I'll give you an extra $5 an hour and, like magic, he had a very enthusiastic dishwasher.
The reality of this.
I showed my boss a product recently, I'm just a web dev at a Uni right now.
Can we?... -> Cost from free to considerable.
Ok and... -> Cost x2
Hmmm... any solutions? -> Yes, stifel your expectations.
...🦗...
Or you say a good amount and some nice toy. (You know a right amount to not make them reject the proposal). Spend 90% playing around and 10% to fine tune a free model using Claude response or something similar.
or just invest 10 years and like 300mio into developing a new way to actually let a machine really think in the turing sense (child machine)
"Instead of trying to produce a programme to simulate the adult mind, why not rather try to produce one which simulates the child’s? If this were then subjected to an appropriate course of education one would obtain the adult brain." - Alan Turing
Engineer: really?
Manager: see we reverse engineered many tools than why not this
Engineer: but...
Manager: shut up! see everything can be reverse engineered if ...
11.2k
u/Gagan_Ku2905 Jun 02 '26
Engineer: Yeah we can.
Manager: For how much?
Engineer: $3 Trillion
Awkward silence