zlacker

[return to "Why software stocks are getting pummelled"]
1. latefo+G02[view] [source] 2026-02-02 19:39:18
>>peteth+(OP)
> The fear is that these [AI] tools are allowing companies to create much of the software they need themselves.

AI-generated code still requires software engineers to build, test, debug, deploy, secure, monitor, be on-call, support, handle incidents, and so on. That's very expensive. It is much cheaper to pay a small monthly fee to a SaaS company.

◧◩
2. mattma+072[view] [source] 2026-02-02 20:04:23
>>latefo+G02
A lot of these companies are not small monthly fees. And if you’ve ever worked with them, you’ll know that many of the tools they sell are an exact match for almost nobody’s needs.

So what happens is a corporation ends up spending a lot of money for a square tool that they have to hammer into a circle hole. They do it because the alternative is worse.

AI coding does not allow you to build anything even mildly complex with no programmers yet. But it does reduced by an order of magnitude the amount of money you need to spend on programming a solution that would work better.

Another thing AI enables is significantly lower switching costs. A friend of mine owned an in person and online retailer that was early to the game, having come online in the late 90s. I remember asking him, sometime around 2010, when his Store had become very difficult to use, why he didn’t switch to a more modern selling platform, and the answer was that it would have taken him years to get his inventory moved from one system to another. Modern AI probably could’ve done almost all of the work for him.

I can’t even imagine what would happen if somebody like Ford wanted to get off of their SAP or Oracle solution. A lot of these products don’t withhold access to your data but they also won’t provide it to you in any format that could be used without a ton of work that until recently would’ve required a large number of man hours

◧◩◪
3. WarmWa+qC2[view] [source] 2026-02-02 22:15:54
>>mattma+072
I have a prime example of this were my company was able to save $250/usr/mo for 3 users by having Claude build a custom tool for updating ancient (80's era) proprietary manufacturing files to modern ones. It's not just a converter, it's a gui with the tools needed to facilitate a quick manual conversion.

There is only one program that offers this ability, but you need to pay for the entire software suite, and the process is painfully convoluted anyway. We went from doing maybe 2-3 files a day to do doing 2-3 files an hour.

I have repeated ad-nausea that the magic of LLMs is the ability to built the exact tool you need for the exact job you are doing. No need for the expensive and complex 750k LOC full tool shed software suite.

◧◩◪◨
4. magica+PJ2[view] [source] 2026-02-02 22:42:33
>>WarmWa+qC2
> It's not just a converter, it's a gui with the tools needed to facilitate a quick manual conversion.

is this like a meta-joke?

> I have a prime example of this were my company was able to save $250/usr/mo for 3 users by having Claude build a custom tool for updating ancient (80's era) proprietary manufacturing files to modern ones.

The funny thing about examples like this is that they mostly show how dumb and inefficient the market is with many things. This has been possible for a long time with, you know, people, just a little more expensive than a Claude subscription, but would have paid for itself many times over through the years.

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. mwigda+5R2[view] [source] 2026-02-02 23:08:35
>>magica+PJ2
It's not just a joke, it's a meta-joke! To address the substance of your comment, it's probably an opportunity cost thing. Programmers on staff were likely engaged in what was at least perceived as higher value work, and replacing the $250/mo subscription didn't clear the bar for cost/benefit.

Now with Claude, it's easy to make a quick and dirty tool to do this without derailing other efforts, so it gets done.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. magica+gK5[view] [source] 2026-02-03 18:04:57
>>mwigda+5R2
> Programmers on staff were likely engaged in what was at least perceived as higher value work, and replacing the $250/mo subscription didn't clear the bar for cost/benefit.

Agreed absolutely, but that's also what I'm talking about. It's very clear it was a bad tradeoff. Not only $250/month x three seats, but also apparently whatever the opportunity cost just of personnel tied up doing "2-3 files a day" when they could have been doing "2-3 files an hour".

Even if we take at face value that there are no "programmers" at this company (with an employee commenting on hacker news, someone using Claude to iterate on a GUI frontend for this converter, and apparently enough confidence in Claude's output to move their production system to it), there are a million people you could have hired over the last decade to throw together a file conversion utility.

And this happens all the time in companies where they don't realize which side of https://xkcd.com/1205/ they're on.

It's great if, like personal projects people never get started on, AI shoves them over the edge and gets them to do it, but we can also be honest that they were being pretty dumb for continually spending that money in the first place.

[go to top]