AI Engineer World's Fair 2024
The AI emperor has no DAUs: why most devs still don't use code AI
Read the talk
The AI emperor has no DAUs
Code AI can be useful without becoming a habit. Quinn Slack examines the gap between impressive capabilities and daily use, then shows how to design products developers can check, correct, and keep using.
From a talk by Quinn Slack
An enthusiastic room is not the market
A room full of AI engineers is a dangerous place to judge developer adoption. Quinn Slack, Sourcegraph’s CEO and co-founder, approaches the problem as a working programmer: after a stint at Bleacher Report, he has been building code search and code AI since 2013. But writing software is only part of the job. If the product never becomes useful enough for people to adopt, the implementation does not accomplish much. His experience building Cody supplies both the mistakes and the attempts to correct them.
Asked whether they have used any code-AI tool while coding in the past week, the San Francisco audience responds enthusiastically. That is precisely the sampling problem. This room contains unusually committed users; it cannot stand in for the worldwide developer population. Slack says the public adoption numbers he is about to examine broadly match the private information he encounters through his work.
Suggest correction
This note stays in this page until you copy or download it. Nothing is submitted; reloading clears the draft.
What adoption statistics actually measure
The first impressive number is a GitHub survey reporting 92% use of AI coding tools among 500 US developers. That is a sample of developers at large employers, not a worldwide census. Its descriptions also vary between workplace use and use at work or outside it. The broad definition matters: trying a tool is a different event from depending on it every day. A second figure, 70% seeing benefits from AI coding tools, concerns perceived or anticipated value rather than demonstrated adoption.
Microsoft’s January 2024 earnings call reported over 1.3 million paid GitHub Copilot subscribers. Payment is stronger evidence than interest, but it still does not tell us whether a subscriber uses the product.
Slack then cites roughly 935,000 developers who received a Copilot suggestion in a GitHub study. Receiving ghost text does not require accepting it. He interprets the figure as yearly activity and infers substantially lower monthly and daily use. The matching report concerns Copilot’s first year around its 2023 publication; it does not establish a contemporary 2024 yearly-active total or disclose the MAU and DAU figures inferred here.
| Signal | What it establishes | What remains unknown |
|---|---|---|
| Survey response | Reported use or perceived benefit | Sustained behavior |
| Paid subscription | A purchased entitlement | Actual activity |
| Suggestion received | Exposure to an output | Acceptance or usefulness |
| Monthly or daily activity | Use within a defined interval | Value delivered by that use |
The event and observation window are part of the metric. Without them, an adoption number can sound much stronger than its evidence.
Suggest correction
This note stays in this page until you copy or download it. Nothing is submitted; reloading clears the draft.
A large audience, a narrow habit
The denominator changes the picture again. Slack uses roughly 26 million professional developers, assembled from broadly similar search results, and considers it an undercount. Including students and others who touch code, he loosely estimates 100–150 million people. These are rough population estimates, not a common measurement base with the Copilot figures.
Slack’s best-case estimate is that around 5% of professional developers use code AI. His illustration is a room of twenty developers in which nineteen do not use it. That estimate is his judgment about the market, not a worldwide adoption rate established by the preceding subscription and study counts.
Even among users, the dominant habit is narrow: autocomplete supplies ghost text for the next fragment of code. The slide makes this more specific: 63% use only autocomplete, labeled as Sourcegraph Cody usage data from June 2024. That condition matters; it is not a measurement of every code-AI product. Yet the capabilities already extend to writing whole files, answering questions, and fixing bugs. Getting those capabilities into everyday use requires changing the behavior of developers outside the early-adopter room.
Suggest correction
This note stays in this page until you copy or download it. Nothing is submitted; reloading clears the draft.
Why developers decline code AI
Sourcegraph’s internal experience with Cody produces a less exotic list of adoption barriers than the technology might suggest. Slack presents them in descending order of prominence:
- No compelling reason: Some developers have not tried ChatGPT, or have barely encountered it. A new capability is not automatically a reason to change a workflow.
- Wrong answers: An initial failure can settle the developer’s opinion before they learn how to obtain useful results.
- Little personal benefit: A developer may try the tool without finding a task where it helps enough to matter.
- Organizational and price barriers: The company has not adopted the tool, or the cost is difficult to justify.
- Security, privacy, and legal concerns: Slack reports encountering these objections less often than before.
His response to the middle objections is that learning to use the tool is itself part of making it useful. His joke about widespread adoption creating mutually assured destruction explains a perceived normalization of risk; it does not resolve the underlying legal questions.
Suggest correction
This note stays in this page until you copy or download it. Nothing is submitted; reloading clears the draft.
Where sustainable AI revenue comes from
Weak adoption matters beyond the companies selling coding assistants. Startup funding, enterprise plans, and even investors’ retirement and options accounts depend on expectations of future demand. To understand that dependence, trace the money through the stack. Foundation-model companies such as OpenAI and Anthropic supply models; infrastructure companies serve inference and send some revenue upstream. Sometimes those functions belong to the same company.
Experimentation can generate inference bills and revenue before anyone has established sustained use. Next come individual users, illustrated by someone paying twenty dollars a month, followed by developers using the product at work. The durable business appears when enterprise customers renew because the software continues to earn its place.
Slack illustrates that distinction with a hypothetical JPMorgan contract: a million dollars in the first year, followed by a two-million-dollar renewal. The first sale can express hope; the renewal should reflect value experienced in use. An infrastructure investment may rest on the belief that an enterprise will eventually make payments like that years into the future.
Add Nvidia and other chipmakers above the model and infrastructure layers, and the amount of investment depending on the eventual user grows larger still. The enterprise developer doing ordinary work may be less glamorous than the technology powering the system, but that developer’s continued use is what supports the revenue chain.
Suggest correction
This note stays in this page until you copy or download it. Nothing is submitted; reloading clears the draft.
Sizing the revenue gap
Slack estimates total recurring code-AI revenue at about $300 million ARR, drawing on internal information and GitHub disclosures at the conference. That could support a substantial standalone business. The next question is how much reaches the companies supplying its models and infrastructure.
Slack reports that Sourcegraph spends less than 10% of its revenue on AI inference, despite not having optimized that spending heavily. Applying a 10% share to his $300 million market estimate yields $30 million annually for model and infrastructure providers. This is an extrapolation from Sourcegraph’s economics, not an observed total for upstream suppliers. The distance from that amount to revenue supporting multibillion-dollar valuations is the financial version of the adoption gap.
Using an approximate $36 billion in annual Salesforce revenue, Slack puts his $300 million code-AI ARR estimate at one one-hundred-and-twentieth of Salesforce’s scale. For historical context, Salesforce reported $34.86 billion for fiscal 2024; the talk does not identify the period behind its rounded figure, and annual recognized revenue differs from ARR. The comparison is about order of magnitude.
One possible reading is a hype bubble that will collapse. Slack acknowledges that possibility, but his own daily use points him toward a different conclusion: the utility is real and the market is early. Product builders must therefore plan for the work of growing usage, rather than assume widespread adoption has already happened.
Suggest correction
This note stays in this page until you copy or download it. Nothing is submitted; reloading clears the draft.
Cody’s context advantage
Sourcegraph arrived at coding assistance through code search. After a decade of helping developers navigate company code, it already had access to the material an assistant would need to answer repository-specific questions. Code context turned an existing search product into a foundation for Cody.
The Cody described here combines autocomplete, inline edits, unit-test generation, and chat. Chat is where Slack sees the strongest differentiation: company code can help answer why something is broken, how to change it, or where to begin. Those questions require more than plausible code in isolation; they require connecting the request to the system the developer actually maintains.
Slack says Sourcegraph’s customers include four of the five largest US banks and most of the major technology companies grouped under FAANG or MAÑANA. He also describes Sourcegraph as second in code-AI revenue behind GitHub Copilot. These company claims establish the commercial experience behind the lessons that follow, rather than independently measured product superiority.
Suggest correction
This note stays in this page until you copy or download it. Nothing is submitted; reloading clears the draft.
Test usefulness instead of following hype
Two lessons frame Sourcegraph’s experience: hype can fool builders and customers alike, and autocomplete was an unusually fortunate first feature. To resist the first problem, Slack starts with a demanding test: the people building the product should use it every day. Customer enthusiasm can otherwise conceal the absence of a habit. A compliment costs little; repeatedly choosing the product during real work is stronger evidence.
For about a year, customers repeatedly requested fine-tuned models. Salespeople relayed the request, while competitors advertised the capability as coming soon. Slack’s interpretation is that customers were naming a fashionable mechanism for an underlying need: they wanted the product to work well. The useful response is to understand that need and explain the delivered benefit without relying on the word AI.
Slack claims developer productivity gains of 20–30%, without specifying a measurement method in the talk. He then turns the claim into a harder business question. If the gain is so valuable, why sell the tool instead of buying a software outsourcing firm and capturing the productivity improvement directly? It resembles the question one might ask someone selling stock-picking newsletters: why not invest on those picks?
Sourcegraph was considering that acquisition experiment, not reporting a completed purchase or a measured result. For a well-funded builder, willingness to put a few million dollars behind the experiment becomes a test of confidence in the product’s value.
Public attention is a weaker test. A viral product tweet can collect enormous engagement without producing daily active users. Slack imagines a social-media display that would reveal the promoted product’s DAU alongside the engagement counters. Until such a display exists, builders should mentally separate the two rather than treat competitors’ publicity as evidence of habitual use.
Suggest correction
This note stays in this page until you copy or download it. Nothing is submitted; reloading clears the draft.
Frequency and verification cost
Sourcegraph evaluates features with a four-box framework: how often is the feature used, and how quickly can the developer tell whether its output is correct? The desirable corner combines frequent use with easy verification. Autocomplete fits unusually well because typing continually creates opportunities to help, while a short suggestion can often be judged at a glance. Slack describes checking a suggestion in seconds or milliseconds, including roughly 100 milliseconds; this is an illustration of low verification effort, not a timed evaluation.
Other interfaces have a harder path:
| Feature | Opportunity for use | Verification burden |
|---|---|---|
| Autocomplete | During typing | Inspect a short suggestion |
| Chat | When a question arises | Read and assess a longer answer |
| Inline edits | When requesting a change | Review the proposed edit |
Chat is less frequent, and its long responses take more work to vet. Inline edits—including the Meta+K and Option+K interactions Slack mentions in Cody and Cursor—face similar constraints. A useful future interface may look substantially different from the current one.
Agents raise the same question at a larger scope. Slack asks who has used a code-AI agent to merge a pull request in the previous week. He sees agents as part of the future, but judges their product fit at the time of the talk to be immature. The design task is to move features toward frequent use and inexpensive checking, rather than assume that greater autonomy alone makes them more adoptable.
Suggest correction
This note stays in this page until you copy or download it. Nothing is submitted; reloading clears the draft.
Searching for the next coding modality
What comes after autocomplete remains an open product question. Slack is skeptical that next-edit suggestions or Copilot++ necessarily supply the answer. He is interested in Steve Yegge’s description of chat-oriented programming, or CHOP: a developer keeps a Cody or ChatGPT conversation open throughout the coding session, treating it as an ongoing exchange rather than a sequence of isolated questions.
The memorable detail is who uses it. Slack sees the pattern among both Gen Z developers and disgruntled programmers around fifty. That observation suggests a behavior worth understanding across experience levels, not simply a generational replacement of old habits. The next successful mode of working may emerge from patterns that current product categories do not yet capture.
Suggest correction
This note stays in this page until you copy or download it. Nothing is submitted; reloading clears the draft.
Make explicit workflows work before automating
Autocomplete can teach the wrong lesson because it triggers automatically with every keystroke. Its success does not mean every new feature should begin with hidden decisions and automatic actions. Make the manual, explicit workflow useful first.
For context and agent features, that means a concrete sequence:
- Let developers select context. In chat, make explicit
@mentionswork before trying to infer and insert all relevant context automatically. - Keep correction in the editor. Put an agent where the developer can directly change its incorrect output, rather than requiring a move to Codespaces or another separate interface.
- Add automation after the workflow works. First make the result useful and the repair path easy. That work may occupy the team for a long time before additional magic is warranted.
Explicit context selection gives the developer a way to steer the answer. Local correction gives them a way to recover when steering is insufficient. Both lower the cost of continuing to use an imperfect system.
Suggest correction
This note stays in this page until you copy or download it. Nothing is submitted; reloading clears the draft.
Actively lower inflated expectations
Expectation setting is another part of the interface. People mentally add hype even when a pitch tries to remove it, so Slack recommends deliberately lowering expectations. He uses a Sam Altman post about ChatGPT as the example: the displayed post warns about limitations, reliability, and the misleading impression that a compelling interaction can create.
Slack loosely recalls the post as about a year old and guesses that ChatGPT already had tens of millions of daily users; that is his recollection, not an established DAU disclosure. His prescription for less validated products is rhetorical: de-hype ten times more intensely. A builder should be especially careful about promises when the product has less evidence behind it. Understatement can also be effective marketing because it makes the useful result easier to believe.
Suggest correction
This note stays in this page until you copy or download it. Nothing is submitted; reloading clears the draft.
Become a daily user
Slack’s final product test is blunt: become a daily active user yourself, or kill the product. This reconnects the builder’s own behavior to the economics of the entire stack. Sourcegraph’s payments to Anthropic, OpenAI, Mistral, and Fireworks depend on Cody generating substantial revenue. Those providers, in turn, have a stake in whether applications become useful businesses.
Applications, infrastructure, and model providers therefore share an interest in reducing hype and increasing actual use. The work starts close to home: build something that earns a place in your own daily development, make it easy to check and correct, and give other developers a reason to return to it during theirs.
Suggest correction
This note stays in this page until you copy or download it. Nothing is submitted; reloading clears the draft.
Resources
From the talk
The historical disclosure of over 1.3 million paid GitHub Copilot subscribers.
Updates since the talk
Current guidance for Cody’s editor integrations, codebase context, chat and edits, with Sourcegraph Enterprise access.
Read the complete timestamped transcript
- 0:00
[upbeat music] Great to see you all. Again, I'm Quinn Slack.
- 0:16
I'm, uh, CEO and co-founder here at Sourcegraph, and yes, I was at Bleacher Report. Think I learned I'm better coding than doing sports, so I'm in the right role here.
- 0:25
Uh, I wanna talk to you about why most devs still do not use code AI. It's probably a mind-boggling fact to all the people in this room, but it's true, and we'll have a good discussion about that.
- 0:37
Uh, I'm a coder. I code all the time. Been building Sourcegraph, which is code search and code AI for devs since 2013. I merged four PRs earlier today, but I wanna talk mostly about the product and, and what to build and how to get it in the hands of users.
- 0:52
Because if you don't do that right, then all the code that you write is for nil. So
- 0:59
three points I wanna make. One is that most devs don't use code AI.
- 1:05
I want this to scare you. I want to scare you in this talk, and then I wanna share some of the mistakes we made and some of the tips from our experience doing all the things wrong and then trying to figure out how do we do it right at Sourcegraph as we've been building Cody.
- 1:21
All right. Um, first just show of hands here. Who uses... Who in the last week has used any kind of code AI tool while coding?
- 1:31
All right. Man, I wish the whole world was like this room, but we are in the heart of it in San Francisco, and the whole world is very different.
- 1:39
Most devs do not use code AI, and I'm gonna give some numbers here. Uh, I'm privy to a lot of private information and stuff that I've heard as well, and all of this is in line with what I've been hearing.
- 1:49
So first number. Oh man, this is a great statistic. 92% of devs use code AI tools at work. Wow, that means these tools must have tens of millions of users.
- 2:00
Uh, this was a study from GitHub, uh, 500 people. Well, it turns out this is only in the US, and they had a very broad definition of what it means to use a code AI tool.
- 2:10
So here's a case where the hype kind of outstrips the reality, a common pattern.
- 2:15
This is an infographic from GitHub. 70% of developers see a benefit to using AI coding tools at work. Surely, if there's a benefit, they must all be using these things, right?
- 2:25
I mean, if only it worked that way.
- 2:28
All right, some numbers for the broader universe. Uh, there are 1.3 million paid subscribers to GitHub Copilot. This was what Microsoft reported in January 2024. 1.3 million is a lot, but if you're just paying for something, are you actually using it?
- 2:43
And also, 1.3 million is not a lot compared to all the people in the world that write code. And there's actually a way to get an even finer point on that number.
- 2:53
GitHub released a study saying, uh, if you look at the fine print, that in this time range, this year, 935,000 devs received a suggestion, not even accepted it. So there's gonna be some that saw that little ghost text in their editor and never actually accepted it, and also that's yearly active users.
- 3:11
I don't know of any companies that go and cite yearly active users. Uh, surely the monthly active users and daily active user figures are much lower than that. So these numbers are, you know, pretty...
- 3:23
You could fill, you could fill a city with these people, but it's not that many people when you compare it to the 26 million professional developers in the world.
- 3:31
And I think this is an undercount. Um, I will say that, you know, how do you get this number? I googled a bunch of different stats, and they all were around this.
- 3:38
Um, so, you know, that's the Vibes citation there. There's a lot more people that touch code in some way or another. I... Again, it's really hard to get a number on this, but I'd say probably 100, 150 million people in the world touch code in some way, and that includes students and other people and so on.
- 3:54
So, you know, 935K, best case, what is that in MAU? That's tiny compared to the number of people that interact with code. So this is a scary thing. My best case estimate is that around 5% of professional developers use code AI.
- 4:09
These are people that are paid a lot of money to write code, and they do it all day, every single day, and all of us here in the room, we know that there's this amazing new alien technology that's dropped on Earth, and that it changes how we code, and 5% are using it.
- 4:25
That's crazy. That means in a room of 20 people, 19 are not using this. It just absolutely boggles my mind, and that's, you know, a huge problem. And it's an even bigger problem because if you look at what they're actually using, the vast majority of code AI use is just autocomplete.
- 4:39
It's the ghost text. I mean, yeah, that's, that's good, but anyone who has used anything beyond that knows that AI can do so much more when coding. It can write entire files, it can answer questions, it can fix bugs and all of that stuff.
- 4:51
So this usage is absolutely tiny, and we need to realize that we here in this room, we are all the freaks, and for us to be successful requires us to change a lot of minds out there in the world.
- 5:04
So how do we change those minds? Well, you know, we've been building Cody. Cody is a code AI tool. It does all of these things, and so we encounter a lot of reasons why people are hesitant at first, and I've taken the reasons from our own internal tools and ranked them.
- 5:19
Why don't most devs use code AI? The first one is just, eh, they don't have a good reason. Uh, there's some people in the world, believe it or not, that have not used ChatGPT, that have not heard about it, even devs.
- 5:31
Uh, there's a lot of devs who are kinda grumpy, and they say, "Well, it's not perfect. I tried it and it gave me a wrong answer." Yeah, no shit, but there's a lot of other people that have figured out how to get the right answer out of it.
- 5:43
Uh, a lot of people say, "I don't need it. It didn't help me that much." You know, again, you gotta figure out how to make it useful for you.
- 5:50
A lot of people's company hasn't adopted it. It's too expensive or... You know, one thing we're seeing a lot less of now is the security, privacy, and legal concerns.
- 5:57
I think it's a situation where every... enough people are using it so that if it's illegal to use code AI, then we're all fucked, so it's mutually assured destruction.
- 6:07
But there's a lot of reasons why people don't use it yet.
- 6:11
And this should really scare us because there's a lot of companies that are relying on a lot of people at a lot of enterprises using code AI. There's a lot of people's retirement accounts or option trading accounts or whatever that are also relying on that.
- 6:29
And if you think about how technology makes money, I mean, you know, the, the money that gets deposited into your bank account and your paycheck, where do those dollars come from?
- 6:38
It takes, you know, kind of a long route. Uh, just to explore the market a little bit here, you know, you've got these foundation model companies like OpenAI and Anthropic at the top, and then you have the AI infra companies.
- 6:52
And the AI infra companies, you know, they will send-- If they're serving and doing inference, they'll send some of the money back to the foundation model companies. In some cases, they're the same companies.
- 7:02
And you know what drives usage of that? You have some experimental usage, people being the looky-loos, going and trying it out. That will turn into some experimental revenue. But all of that can happen without any real, actual usage.
- 7:15
Uh, but that gives the perception of, "Holy shit, this stuff is hot. This stuff is working." And then you start to get some real usage, some people using it, uh, you know, maybe paying twenty bucks a month on their credit card.
- 7:27
You get some devs using it at work. And then the Holy Grail, the way that software makes money, is from enterprises where there's recurring revenue from real usage. That first year contract, it doesn't matter.
- 7:37
It's gotta be JPMorgan pays you a million dollars the first year, and then they renew for two million dollars the next year. And all of the money in our paychecks ultimately comes from that.
- 7:47
If you're working at an AI infra company, if you've raised money to go and sell some AI product, it's ultimately because someone out there thinks that five years from now, JPMorgan is gonna be paying you two million dollars a year.
- 7:58
So that's the only thing that matters. Everything else is downstream of that. And it turns out there's just not that much of that going on. And also, this is an even more lopsided pyramid than I've depicted here.
- 8:09
We got Nvidia and chip makers at the top, and so much investment riding on it. So, you know, this is where we ultimately need to get to. We need this person to be using our software, and maybe it's not the coolest thing out there, but that is the reality of how technology makes money.
- 8:26
And wanna put some numbers to this. I estimate, based on, uh, my internal information, some of the information that GitHub has shared at this conference, that the total recurring revenue from code AI usage is around three hundred million ARR.
- 8:41
Now, look, that's a lot of money. If you had a company that was doing that, then it could go public on its own. So that's good. But how much of that money actually goes to these other companies?
- 8:51
Not that much. Uh, from our own data at Sourcegraph, where we spend a lot of money on AI inference, we spend less than ten percent of our revenue. So if you take that number-- And by the way, we're not even doing it in that optimized of a fashion.
- 9:05
If you take that three hundred million number, ten percent of it, that's thirty million dollars going back up to these foundation model companies and AI infra companies. It's a long way from where we are today, that amount of revenue, to them making the kind of revenue that's gonna justify these massive multi-billion dollar valuations.
- 9:22
Also, another way to look at it is Salesforce. Salesforce's annual revenue is thirty-six billion dollars. All of this stuff, all this hype, all this usage of code AI, it's, it's amounting to a tiny, tiny fraction, one one-hundredth and twentieth of Salesforce.
- 9:38
So we have a long way to go. Usage needs to grow a lot. Or I could be wrong and maybe the doomers are right. Maybe not for the reason they thought.
- 9:48
Maybe we should never have done this, and this is all just gonna be one massive hype bubble, and it's gonna pop, and we're all gonna be miserable. But I think because I use code AI every day, obviously, and you do too, this stuff is real.
- 9:59
It's just, it's really early, and usage needs to grow a lot. So if you're building a product, keep that in mind.
- 10:06
This is what I'm betting on. And let's talk about some of the lessons from our experience building Cody at Sourcegraph. I wish I had this mindset going into it.
- 10:15
Uh, just quick background to establish, you know, why would you even listen to me? Maybe I should have done this in the first slide, but hey, here we are.
- 10:22
Uh, Sourcegraph has been around, as Brittany said, for ten years. We started out with code search, and then we found out that if we ha-- We had this tool that all the devs used and had all the code in a company, and it turns out that was amazing context to build a code AI on top of.
- 10:38
And so we took that and we built Cody. It's got really great autocomplete and inline edits, generating unit tests and chat. And chat is where we really differentiate because that's where you can make the best use of context.
- 10:49
So you can figure out why is this broken, or how do I change this, or where should I start on this? That's where we excel.
- 10:57
Uh, we've got a lot of really big customers. We have four of the top five biggest banks in the country. We have most of the FAANG or MAÑANA companies or whatever, and a lot of other great customers, including some that are presenting today.
- 11:09
And we are the number two code AI company in revenue, second only, of course, to GitHub Copilot. Uh, but because we're number two and because we're a startup and we're scrappy, we try harder.
- 11:22
All right, so what have we learned? One is that hype fools everyone. Hype fools us. Hype fools all of you. Hype even fools your customers. And the second thing is that AI code completion, the thing that autocompletes the rest of the line or the next few lines, that's like the freakish kind of feature that comes along like
- 11:41
one time in a hundred years. And we kinda got spoiled. It is so perfect. So I'll get to that. But first, just, you know, on the hype, how do you get away from being fooled by the hype?
- 11:54
I'll share a few tips that have worked for us. The first, and this is the most important thing, if you're building a product and you are not using it every single day, it is not gonna make it.
- 12:03
There is zero hope. If you're building it on a team and the people all building it don't use it every day, your customers will not. But they might say it's really awesome, and that's the dangerous thing about this hype.
- 12:15
Customers don't know what they want. Every customer for about a year said, "I want fine-tuned models." They said that all the time. Our salespeople would say, "Hey, we need to build fine-tuned models."
- 12:26
Everyone was talking about it. GitHub Copilot has it as a bullet. You know, all of our competitors have it as a bullet that's, like, italic and it's, like, coming soon.
- 12:32
It's some bullshit thing. Really, what they just want is they want it to work well, and they use some of these terms. So don't listen to them, 'cause what they're saying is probably downstream of them sitting at, you know, some conference like this and getting some cool ideas.
- 12:44
They want the product to work, and if you can't describe why it works and why it's great without using the word AI, then you're probably not gonna make it.
- 12:52
Uh, this is a really existential question. So we make a product that makes developers a lot more productive, like, 20 or 30% more productive. If it's so damn good, why are we selling a product?
- 13:03
It's like the people that have the stock picks and sell newsletters. Why don't we go and buy a software outsourcing firm and prove it and monetize our product by actually capturing that value directly?
- 13:13
That's a damn good question, and I wish that we had done that a year ago, and we're looking into doing that now. And, uh, if you don't have the confidence to go and do that, to put, you know, a few million bucks behind that if you've raised a bunch of money, then I'd say your product's probably not
- 13:26
ready yet. And then finally, I think we've all seen this. Um, this is actually not even one of the worst ones. This is, you know, a tweet that's got a lotta, a lotta activity, right?
- 13:36
Um, just keep in mind that that does not translate into DAU, so don't feel shitty about yourself all the time. I wish that Elon would add something like this that would actually tell you the DAU of the products that are getting all this hype.
- 13:47
But until he does that, you can imagine it.
- 13:51
All right. I talked about autocomplete being this freakishly good feature. Here's how we think about features at Sourcegraph, this, uh, kind of four box. You know, you wanna be in the top right, and that's where it's an AI feature that doesn't take a ton of time to see is that correct, and it's, you know, really easy, and
- 14:08
it's used often. AI autocomplete is great because it's literally every keystroke, and you can, like, glance at it in th- in a few seconds or even milliseconds, 100 milliseconds, you can figure out, is this correct?
- 14:18
So that's a really good property of a feature. And it just so turned out that the first feature of code AI happened to be smack dab in the top right.
- 14:28
It's pretty amazing. But most other code AI features do not have this level of product market fit, and we need to realize that. Now, we can work on it, but, you know, where's chat?
- 14:38
Not used nearly as often, and it's harder to vet that long response. Edits, you know, similar. I know a lot of people love doing the inline edits like, uh, you know, Meta K, Option K in Cody and Cursor and things like that.
- 14:50
It's great, but we gotta be prepared for what actually works being a very different form from what exists today. Then there's a lot of other stuff like the agentic stuff.
- 14:58
I mean, look, it's obviously the future, but it's just not there yet. Who here has used a code AI agent to actually merge a PR in the last week?
- 15:09
All right. Cool. Thank you for helping us, you know, push the world forward, but it's not there yet.
- 15:15
And, you know, other features, you really gotta go for that top right and drive any feature you make to the top right, and if not, it's just not gonna make it.
- 15:25
So what are we doing at Sourcegraph to address this? Well, we are searching for that next great code AI modality. What's the next autocomplete? There's some ideas like the next edit suggestion or, like, Copilot Plus Plus.
- 15:37
You know, I'm, I'm skeptical of that. Uh, chat. Steve Yegge, who is at Sourcegraph, he just wrote this great blog post about chat-oriented programming, CHOP, where it turns out there's a lot of devs who have a chat session running in, like, Cody or even ChatGPT or something, like, all the time while they're coding, and it's just one
- 15:54
ongoing conversation. It's a totally new way of coding, and what's weird is it's, like, the Gen Zs who do it, and it's, like, the [REDACTED:age], you know, disgruntled programmers who do it.
- 16:03
So I love that it's got kinda, you know, uh, some usage in both generations. Um, there's new ways that people are gonna be using code AI that we have not even thought about, and it's so early to the previous point.
- 16:14
We always gotta remind ourselves to build the manual and explicit thing first. We got spoiled by autocomplete. It's automatic, and, you know, it's, uh, it, it just, like, triggers every keystroke.
- 16:25
No. First, you gotta make something work in manual and explicit mode. If you have chat, you gotta make it so people manually @mention the context they want before magically inserting the context.
- 16:35
If you've got an agent, put it in the editor and make it work in the editor so that if it's wrong, the dev can just change it right in their editor instead of having to go into Codespaces or some other totally different UI.
- 16:46
So make it manual and explicit first and really easy for the dev to go and fix it, and then you can add the magic. Probably, [laughs] you know, you're gonna be bogged down enough with, uh, stuff to make it a great product, and you won't actually get to adding the magic for a while.
- 17:00
When you're pitching, always explicitly de-hype and set expectations low. No matter how much you de-hype, the person receiving it, they will hype it up in their minds. So you gotta remove the hype.
- 17:11
Do this so aggressively. And, uh, here's an example from Sam Altman. This is a tweet, I don't know, like, a year ago when ChatGPT had probably tens of millions of DAU.
- 17:23
So he's right. We know he's right, and if he's saying this and his product has way more validation than your product, well, you probably should be saying it, like, 10 times more and 10 times more intensely.
- 17:32
Also, it's kinda cool marketing, and it, you know, makes you seem cool.
- 17:37
Um, yeah, you gotta become... Here. It's covered up. Uh, you gotta become a DAU yourself or kill the product. And then the last thing is just that as a ecosystem, all these foundation model companies, all these AI infra companies, all these AI applications, we all live or die together.
- 17:55
Anthropic and OpenAI and Mistral and Fireworks and all these great companies that we use are not gonna get paid if we're not in business making a shit ton of money on Cody.
- 18:05
So we all need to work together and realize that we all have so much to benefit from this stuff actually being used, from turning down the hype and building great products that get actual devs using it all the time, and that starts with you if you're the one building the product.
- 18:19
So thank you, and if you, uh, wanna reach out to me, uh, there's my contact info, and happy coding. [upbeat music]