[latexr]

> I probably did what would take one team 6 montns and produced it myself in one month.

I find it… Amusing? That’s not quite the word. That programmers—a group notoriously for making wrong estimates of how long something will take to build—continuously and confidently spew a version of this.

And it’s not even estimating how long we ourselves would take to build something, now we’re onto estimating what an undetermined team of completely made up strangers could do. It’s bonkers. It has no basis in reality.

[dahart]

It’s not an estimate, the point was that AI produced code multiples faster than the prompter, and the prompter is in a pretty good position to make that claim. I can confirm and make the same claim, so I believe that it’s true that for some tasks, Claude makes me 10x faster than on my own without AI, where 10x absolutely is a completely made up number that’s still true in spirit.

[latexr]

> It’s not an estimate

Yes, it is. “It would take a team 6 months” is an estimate, and I don’t see how you can argue it’s not. Even if it just said it would take them longer, that would still be an estimate.

> Claude makes me 10x faster than on my own without AI

Also an estimate.

> where 10x absolutely is a completely made up number

And by your own admission, an estimate taken from the ass that you thus cannot be certain is true. Made up perception does not equal reality.

https://metr.org/blog/2025-07-10-early-2025-ai-experienced-o...