These articles on using AI for writing are all very binary. You can use AI in a variety of ways when writing: improve grammar, correct typos, better organize ideas/concepts/sentence structure/sentences, and dozens of other “how applications (as opposed to “what”).
It’s not like people feel the need to explain that they used a spellchecker or thesaurus or googled the correct use of an idiom, etc.
There seems to be a general need for some people to dunk on valuable AI use by refusing to acknowledge that there are a many ways to use a tool. (Similar story on using AI for coding.)
Echoing a comment from above, why would I care whether a sentence was formulated by AI or John or a ghostwriter or John who asked Jane for feedback before rewriting?
I care about the content. If I don’t like the way it’s written or if I’m irked by how it is written (ooh, an emdash — how embarrassing!) then I don’t need to read it.
Personally, I’m much more annoyed when I click on an article that sounds interesting, and the author tries to show off their penmanship by starting with five pages of “a history of X” or a tangential but redundant personal story before getting to the point. IMHO most non-fiction writing on the web could be accomplished in bullets. But again, that’s just my very personal preference…
I keep seeing articles like this that extrapolate from token pricing onto token costs. This is wrong.
Companies don’t sell their goods/services at cost. A model’s being priced at, say, $30/M for output tokens doesn’t say anything about what it costs the company to provision the 1M tokens via the model.
And no, you cannot extrapolate from any company margins that someone may have overheard in an SF coffee shop onto individual product line margins or their trajectory either. This information is usually unknowable even in most SEC filings for public companies.
It’d be great if people who wrote these articles used, say, AI to look up some basics on how a business operates. It’s really easy to do, believe me ;)
SaaS’s competitive advantage is not tech but distribution.
Just because the stock market dips, and a bunch of media outlets ascribe this to AI doesn’t mean that AI ‘caused’ the dip.
If people really think non-tech businesses will start running their own software organizations and maintain all these tools themselves is an idiotic assumption at best.
The “building” of software has never been and will never be the bottleneck.
I’ve found that task isolation, rather than preserving your current session’s context budget, is where subagents shine.
In other words, when I have a task that specifically should not have project context, then subagents are great. Claude will also summon these “swarms” for the same reason. For example, you can ask it to analyze a specific issue from multiple relevant POVs, and it will create multiple specialized agents.
However, without fail, I’ve found that creating a subagent for a task that requires project context will result in worse outcomes than using “main CC”, because the sub simply doesn’t receive enough context.
As someone mentioned already, list prices are completely fictitious. Their purpose is to anchor medical payers during reimbursement negotiations and satisfy PBMs (see below).
The allowed price (the price that the payer pays to the drug company) is much, much lower, 70-90% or so in many cases. Thus, juxtaposing OTC and list price is not an apples-to-apples comparison.
That being said, US drug prices are 2-4 times higher than they are elsewhere. In fact, the US market essentially subsidizes international drug markets, where it is much more difficult to charge higher rates due to regulations and lower purchasing power. This also means that, even if the allowed price in the US were known in this example, it would still have to be PPP adjusted to be compared.
Prescription card coupons such as those you get from GoodRx et al apply only to cash prices. These are sometimes lower and sometimes higher than what you’d pay out of pocket with your insurance. to compare, you’d basically have to ask the pharmacy to ring up a drug twice, once with cash price + coupon and once with insurance price.
“Copay assistance” are programs by drug manufacturers, PBMs, or employers to defray the cost of drug prices. This is usually done for specialty drugs that are much more expensive and can often only be purchased from a mail order pharmacy designated by the payer. For example, United Health (left pocket) will only cover the drugs if you get them from their Optum Specialty Pharmacy (right pocket).
As for numbers, here an example: I’m receiving a monthly specialty drug that my insurance is billed ~$9,000/month. In order to arrive at that figure, the drug company proposed, say, a $50k/month list price, and my insurer countered with $9k, using the size of their member pool as leverage. Of course, the drug manufacturer knew they would arrive at approx that figure, which is why they started negotiating that high. Well, sorta. The PBM gets compensated based on a % of the “savings” (spread between list price and final price), so naturally, they want as high as possible a list price, because 5% of a big amount (in my example: $50k-$9k = $41k) than 5% of a smaller amount. Because the PBM often has most of the leverage, the drug manufacturers (most of whom actually dislike PBMs) have to go along with this stupidity.
How much of the $9k I pay depends on a variety of factors, including my insurance plan, which has a specialty drug tier. This means the drug is not handled via the cost sharing accounting mechanism (deductible/copay).
Now, through that specialty tier, my monthly responsibility is set at approx $1,300. I’m not privy to the math behind this, because my insurer has outsourced all drug-related administration to a PBM, which is only loosely regulated and doesn’t even have to issue explanation of benefit statements that would normally disclose the full accounting.
Of the $1,300, I pay nothing, because the drug manufacturer provides me with a copay assistance card. Again, they must keep the list price high to placate the PBM.
I’ve simplified a few things here. For instance, there are now alternative comp models for PBMs. But for those, PBMs have also found ways to manipulate the system in their favor (eg colluding with drug manufacturers). There’s also often a wholesaler involved in the “value” chain.
But by and large, this is roughly how it works…
And yes, individual market plans are substantially inferior. Not only do they have lower actuarial values and higher cost per $ of coverage (which is unavoidable, because they are not risk pools) and narrower networks, but they also usually have built-in mechanisms to further prune away coverage in many subtle ways (they have that in common with self-insured plans):
- more prior approvals,
- “step therapy” (must first not tolerate cheaper drugs before can receive pricier drug),
- not covering the pricier drug tier at all, etc.
These things shave some dollars off the premium, which appeals to price-elastic consumers and employers.
Perhaps it has to do with the fact that Germany has a written legal code. This could mean that punishments are more strictly classified than under a, say, precedence-based common law system. Changing the classification could move these kinds of crimes into harsher punishment bands.
It may not be a sustainable business with current business models. But if cures came with a "post-scription" model where the cured patient paid, say, 0.5% - 1% of their income to the drug company in perpetuity, then incentives are aligned. (Of course, administration is a problem here.) As someone with an incurable disease, I would happily pay for a cure in such a way...
Thank you! I was just about to rant about this and decided to scroll to see if anyone had already called this out.
The article is quite embarrassing - it’s ok if you don’t know how P&L statement and balance sheet work, but writing an entire blog post without ever feeling the need to verify basic terminology is either very lazy or very ignorant…
I agree. Tons of sites employ the bounce-back avoidance tactics, and these don’t particularly help their ranking (in fact, lots on non-ranking sites do it — presumably just to keep you on the page)
It’s not like people feel the need to explain that they used a spellchecker or thesaurus or googled the correct use of an idiom, etc.
There seems to be a general need for some people to dunk on valuable AI use by refusing to acknowledge that there are a many ways to use a tool. (Similar story on using AI for coding.)
Echoing a comment from above, why would I care whether a sentence was formulated by AI or John or a ghostwriter or John who asked Jane for feedback before rewriting? I care about the content. If I don’t like the way it’s written or if I’m irked by how it is written (ooh, an emdash — how embarrassing!) then I don’t need to read it.
Personally, I’m much more annoyed when I click on an article that sounds interesting, and the author tries to show off their penmanship by starting with five pages of “a history of X” or a tangential but redundant personal story before getting to the point. IMHO most non-fiction writing on the web could be accomplished in bullets. But again, that’s just my very personal preference…