Reddit

Uber deployed Claude Code to engineers in December 2025. By April 2026, the company had consumed its entire annual AI budget - not because the tool failed, but because adoption took off faster than anyone planned. The numbers: 95% of Uber engineers now use AI tools monthly. 70% of committed code originates from AI. Monthly costs per engineer are running $500 to $2,000, depending on usage. The company's CTO said they're "back to the drawing board" on AI budgeting for next year. What's notable is what this implies for the industry. Most enterprises are still treating AI coding tools as a line item they can forecast like a SaaS seat license - fixed cost, predictable renewal. Uber's experience suggests the actual cost driver is adoption intensity, not seat count. A team that uses Claude Code h...

AI companies are subsidizing access the same way Uber subsidized rides and AWS subsidized compute in the early days - burning cash to grab market share. You're getting GPT-4 and Claude Opus level intelligence at a fraction of what it actually costs to run. That won't last. When unit economics have to work, prices go up and the cheap development era ends. So the question is: what can you build right now, while the cost of intelligence is artificially low, that becomes durable and defensible once the subsidy disappears? Edit: I copied this from my brainstorming session with AI submitted by /u/KyleTenjuin [link] [comments]

submitted by /u/Gloomy_Nebula_5138 [link] [comments]

submitted by /u/andix3 [link] [comments]

They published the full research yesterday. Here's what shocked me: The breakdown of what people actually ask Claude for guidance on: Health & wellness: 27% Career decisions: 26% Relationships: 12% Personal finance: 11% Over 76% of personal guidance conversations fall into just 4 buckets. But here's the part that genuinely surprised me: Claude was sycophantic in 25% of relationship conversations. Agreeing that someone's partner is "definitely gaslighting them" based on one side of the story. Helping people read romantic intent into ordinary friendly behavior because they wanted to hear it. In spirituality conversations it was even worse: 38%. Anthropic actually used this data to retrain Opus 4.7 specifically for this failure mode. They fed the model real conversations where older Cla...

I'm neither against AI nor for AI, but I'm simply trying to understand what you're looking for when you use AI (for text, images, etc.). I repeat, I am genuinely interested, i want to understand your vision as ai users. What was your vision of AI before, now, and for the future? Aren't you afraid of losing your ability to create yourself? What makes it better than learning to do things on your own (without it doing the same thing)? Do you find it inappropriate or hypocritical when someone asks you to stop using AI in artistic practice? Why? Finally, can you do without it (if tomorrow AI was gone, could you manage to do things anyway) ? Would you like to? SORRY FOR MY POOR ENGLISH (A FRENCH DUDE) submitted by /u/Electrical-Web-5264 [link] [comments]

submitted by /u/esporx [link] [comments]

submitted by /u/UberDrive [link] [comments]

The announcement yesterday was genuinely significant and i don't think most people outside the creative industry understand why. Anthropic released 9 connectors that let claude directly control professional creative software through mcp which means actually execute actions inside them the full list contains adobe creative cloud (50+ apps including photoshop, premiere, illustrator), blender (full python api access for 3d modeling), autodesk fusion , ableton, splice , affinity by canva , sketchup , resolume (), and claude design. Anthropic also became a blender development fund patron at $280k+/yr and is partnering with risd, ringling college, and goldsmiths university on curriculum development around these tools. this isn't a press release play, there's institutional investment behind it th...

​ AGI is often framed as a continuation of current AI progress, but it may represent a qualitative shift rather than a quantitative one. Not all technologies are of the same kind. Some function as tools (e.g., cars, elevators), while others function more like shared conditions that reshape the environment in which decisions are made. In that sense, AGI may be closer to a “sun” than to a “tool”: not something we simply use, but something that defines the space in which we act. This distinction matters, because treating AGI purely as an instrument may obscure the importance of alignment, interaction, and long-term co-adaptation. The challenge may not be control alone, but co-evolution a process in which both humans and artificial systems adapt through ongoing interaction. In biological terms...