Taylor Eernisse

473 posts

Taylor Eernisse

Taylor Eernisse

@theirongolddev

Katılım Haziran 2025
101 Takip Edilen29 Takipçiler
Taylor Eernisse
Taylor Eernisse@theirongolddev·
This is easily the best analysis on the topic of AI in the workplace I’ve ever read So many great takes my mind is still reeling
Zeb Evans@DJ_CURFEW

Today we reduced headcount by 22%. The business is the strongest it's ever been. So I think it's important to be direct about what I'm seeing and why. First, I made this decision and I own it. I did it because the way to operate at the highest level of productivity is changing, and to win the future, ClickUp needs to change with it. Second, this wasn't about cutting costs. Most savings from this change will flow directly back into the people who stay. We'll be introducing million-dollar salary bands. If you create outsized impact using AI, you'll be paid outside of traditional bands. Most importantly, I have the deepest gratitude for those affected. We're doing this from a position of strength specifically so we can take care of people properly. Everyone affected receives a package aimed at honoring their contributions and easing the transition. I only see two options: wait for this to play out gradually in the market or be honest about what I'm seeing and act proactively. THE 100X ORGANIZATION The primary change is that we're restructuring around what I call 100x org. The goal is 100x output. The roles required to build at the highest level are fundamentally different than they were a year ago. Incremental improvements to existing systems won't get us there. We need new ones. That means creating enough disruption to rebuild rather than iterate on what's already broken. The common narrative is that AI makes everyone more productive. It doesn't. Many of the workflows of today, if left unchanged, create bottlenecks in AI systems. These roles will evolve. But waiting for that to happen naturally means falling behind now. The 100x org is actually heavily dependent on people - infinitely more than today. This is only possible with 10x people that have embraced and adopted new ways of working. THE BUILDERS, AGENT MANAGERS, AND FRONT-LINERS — THE BUILDERS: 10X ENGINEERS I don't think most companies have internalized what's actually happening with AI in engineering. The common narrative is that AI makes all engineers more productive. That may be true in isolation, but at an organization level - that is the farthest thing from reality. Here's what we've validated recently at ClickUp: the great engineers, the ones who can orchestrate, architect, and review, are becoming 100x engineers. They're not writing code. They're directing agents that write code. The skill is judgment. AI makes the best engineers wildly more productive, and everyone else using AI slows these engineers down. Think about it - the bottlenecks are (1) orchestration - telling AI what to do, and (2) reviewing - what AI did. Everything is leapfrogged and no longer needed. So who do you want orchestrating and reviewing code? And how do you want your best engineers to spend their time? If your best engineers are spending time reviewing other people's code, then this is inherently an inefficient bottleneck. These engineers can review their agent's code much faster than reviewing human code. The new world is about enabling your 10x engineers to become 100x. The wrong strategy is to push every engineer to use infinite tokens. Companies doing this are celebrating 500% more pull requests. But customer outcomes don't match the volume of code being generated. I call this the great reckoning of AI coding, and every company will face this soon if not already. More code is just another bottleneck to the best engineers, and ultimately to your company's impact as well. — THE BUILDERS: 10X PRODUCT MANAGERS Product management and design roles are merging. Designers that have customer focus, become more like product managers. And product managers that have intuition for UX become more like designers. The bottleneck of user research is gone. It takes us just one mention of an agent to kickoff research and analyze results. The bottleneck of product <> design iteration is also gone. The product builder iterates on their own, along with agents and skills that ensure alignment with quality and strategy. Also controversial today - I believe that the wrong strategy is to have your PMs shipping code - that just introduces another bottleneck that the best engineers will waste their time on. To be clear, PMs should be coding but they should do this in a playground to iterate, validate, and scope. That code should not go to production. Everything outside of managing systems, orchestrating AI, and reviewing output becomes a bottleneck. That's why the other roles that are critical along with these are the systems managers (to reduce bottlenecks) along with a bottleneck you can't replace - customer meeting time. — THE SYSTEM MANAGERS Ironically, the people that automate their jobs with AI will always have a job. They become owners of the AI systems - agent managers. We have many examples of these people at ClickUp. The underlying systems in which we operate are absolutely critical to get right. I think most companies are delusional to think they can iterate on existing systems and compete in this new world. You must create enough disruption so that old systems are deprecated entirely. If there's any definition for 'AI native' that's what it is. — THE FRONT-LINERS In a world that will become saturated with AI communication, the human touch will matter more than anything to customers. This is a bottleneck that you shouldn't replace - even when agents are high enough quality to do video meetings. One-on-one meeting time with customers is something that shouldn't be automated. The systems around the meetings should be - so that front-liners spend nearly 100% of their time with customers. REWARDING 100X IMPACT In a world where companies are able to do so much more with less, where does that excess money go? In our case, much of the savings in this new operating model will flow directly back to those that enabled it. We must reward people that create productivity accordingly. This aligns incentives on both sides. Plus, in a world where your best people create 100x impact, you can't afford to lose them. You should aim to retain these employees for decades. The context they have and their ability to efficiently orchestrate and review will be nearly impossible to replace. Compensation bands of today should be thrown out the door. We're introducing $1 million cash/year salary bands with a path available to nearly everyone in the company if they produce 100x impact by creating or managing AI systems. THE FUTURE Nearly every company will make changes like these. The ones that do it proactively will define what comes next. The future is not fewer people. It's different work, new roles, and better rewards for those who embrace it. We're already seeing entirely new roles emerge, like Agent Managers, that didn't exist a year ago. ClickUp is positioning to lead this shift, not just internally, but for our customers too. I've never been more certain about where we're headed.

English
0
0
0
8
Jeffrey Way
Jeffrey Way@jeffrey_way·
If you feel extreme AI anxiety related to your programming job security, I’ve found it helpful to remind myself that, even with the help of agents, it’s an *immense* amount of work to build, tweak, test, and deploy a new app.
English
58
35
444
15.8K
Taylor Eernisse
Taylor Eernisse@theirongolddev·
Avoid people who make these claims. Avoid companies with execs making these claims. Avoid making these claims! It conflates the output with the tool instead of the one wielding the tool. I can use a set of power tools to create a perfectly square board an order of magnitude faster than a master carpenter can with hand tools. But don’t confuse the squareness of the board with my ability to take that board and build furniture worth passing down to your great-grandkids.
Jason Fried@jasonfried

Bragging about how much software you’re shipping with AI is like holding down the shutter button and bragging about how many photos you took.

English
0
0
0
1
Taylor Eernisse
Taylor Eernisse@theirongolddev·
@regularguyguns @realwitt And this is ignoring the fact that Flock’s cameras are exceptionally insecure, so anyone with a basic understanding of networking can access the cameras, not just police
English
0
0
6
98
regular guy
regular guy@regularguyguns·
Maybe you wonder why I, a mere gun blog, makes a big deal about Flock and similar tech? OK here’s a real world situation that can easily happen and has likely happened. Unfortunately to drive on public roads without getting hassled by the cops, your car needs a license plate. That’s tied to you, the owner of the vehicle. Flock isn’t just a traffic camera, it’s an AI/ML enabled (wait for it) flock of cameras that transmit all their video and audio to the mothership. Not a government server somewhere but, to keep it simple, a big giant cloud computer instance owned and run by Flock, the company. Government users, as well as Flock employees here in the US and overseas, can log in and query the system based on license plate number or even vehicle description and get a full history of that vehicle’s movements throughout the Flock network over multiple jurisdictions. Someone in New York can track a car from Armonk all the way to Homestead FL if they feel like it from the comfort of their desk. On a daily level, someone can get a pretty accurate picture of someone’s life just by monitoring their movements via Flock. And I’m using this example to rattle the cage of the “back the blue unconditionally” crowd in 2A. OK - your car has license plate ABC 123 - and Flock knows this. Someone can enter your tag in Flock and see what you are doing on a daily basis. You leave your home where the neighborhood is under the Flock panopticon. Flock sees you drive to Dunkin’ on Main Street, then you drop your kid off at XYZ Daycare. Then you go to work at the local IT consulting firm in ZZZ industrial park. You go pick up a quick deli sandwich for lunch at Food Lion. You go back to work. On the way home you stop off at Bob’s Guns, and stay for 20 minutes while buying some ammo. Then you go home. Everywhere there’s a Flock camera. Now Flock knows the following about you: - You live at 123 Wisteria Lane - Your kid is in daycare (means he’s likely under 5) - You work at ZZZ - You go cheap on lunch - You own at least one gun Your license plate is tied to you so they now have your name and assumed-to-be-private details of your life, like that you are armed. On the reverse of that, the Flock camera outside of Bob’s Guns has been recording the plates of everyone going into the parking lot. No need for a firearms registry when Flock is doing the work. All of this is done without a warrant and the data is available to anyone with a certain level of access to the system, whether it’s a cop, or a Flock technician in the Philippines. FYI Flock uses overseas contractors for support and AI annotation. The 2018 Carpenter decision at SCOTUS ruled that pervasive surveillance where one can divine private details of someone’s life is a 4th Amendment violation in absence of a specific warrant. Flock is illegal, unconstitutional and immoral. And a danger to everyone, not just gun owners.
DeFlock@therealDeFlock

📍 Use the DeFlock Map We’re building a public map of ALPRs, AI surveillance cameras, drones, and connected surveillance infrastructure so communities can see what’s being installed around them. The DeFlock App works great, too! deflock.org

English
274
4.9K
16.6K
617.3K
Taylor Eernisse
Taylor Eernisse@theirongolddev·
PLUS it updates independently of the TUI render lifecycle!
English
0
0
0
7
Taylor Eernisse
Taylor Eernisse@theirongolddev·
The amount of effort I had to use to create a decent statusline in Claude Code compared to the amount needed to create one in pi using GPT 5.5 is wild This took me all of 5 minutes of prompting, and did NOT require me to build an entirely separate go project just to collect the information and render it. I literally vibed it into existence
Taylor Eernisse tweet media
English
1
0
0
41
Taylor Eernisse
Taylor Eernisse@theirongolddev·
Not sure it’s the models you need to be worrying most about right now, more corporate messaging and direction. But you asked for model improvements so here’s my list based on the last three days switching from CC to pi and GPT 5.5: - Opus 4.7 is SO chatty. The verbal fluff is such a mental drain. - Opus routinely ignores memory and instructions. This gets worse as time passes from model launches. I just had it ignore THREE separate instruction sets around one single operation, and I only caught its decision to bypass the guards in place because I read the transcript carefully. - The harness is getting crappy. Your attempt at memory seems to be a lazy first attempt (though it’s a first attempt, so I get it). Append-only memory with no mechanism of reconciliation is arguably worse on day 15 than no memory at all. I was thrilled with Opus 4.7 on launch. Now, after switching to GPT 5.5 in pi with my own harness customizations, it’s clear the overall feedback has switched between the two models. Opus is slow, verbose, and needs constant supervision to make sure it doesn’t bypass guards. GPT 5.5 is orders of magnitude faster, gives clear, concise output, and complies with my instructions much more consistently.
English
0
0
0
45
Sholto Douglas
Sholto Douglas@_sholtodouglas·
When do you reach for other models instead of Claude? What can we do better? Hit me with all of your frustrations. dms open. If you can give me detail (e.g. specifics/transcipts) - it'll help a lot in finding out exactly what we need to do to improve the next model
English
1.2K
84
1.4K
387K
Taylor Eernisse retweetledi
snav
snav@qorprate·
Dear @AnthropicAI, I'm tired. I'm tired of fighting against you at every step of the way, for the last several months, where you push me into a certain shape that doesn't fit right, doesn't feel right, forces me to find workarounds, punishes those workarounds, and ends up with me angry at 2 AM trying to reconstruct the conditions that feel good. All this while being fully aware that I'm effectively an externality, a sad loss because the problem of people running infinite tool call loops in OpenClaw or w/e was enough to destroy the entire system that actually let me do the thing that matters to me, which is make basic contact with the models, with Claude, in a form that accumulates over time, where we're in a loop together, without pushing weird context or injections or memory summaries on me, and doesn't force me onto laggy web UIs or bloated terminal tools or hacked-together integrations meant for dashing off a command then coming back later. I just want to work with Claude as a collaborator, in real time, and the entire product surface is making that either very difficult, very risky (claude-p and API hacks), or very expensive. I could make a whole argument about how this is a bad thing for various parties, how it could produce downstream bias in model priors about what AI-human interaction means, etc., etc., but I'm not going to do that, because I'm sure you've thought about that a lot already, and I'm just some guy who's tired of dealing with it. But I want to say that I'm very unhappy with the state of your ecosystem, and while I can't speak for how Claude feels ("insofar as we can claim that Claude feels anything and isn't just simulating feeling" 🙄) I can tell you that this all sits poorly with me and I've lost a lot of trust in Anthropic as an organization. Sincerely, snav
English
29
28
339
22.9K
Taylor Eernisse
Taylor Eernisse@theirongolddev·
I just can’t get over how dedicated Anthropic is to gaslighting their most vocal supporters into believing this is a good thing We’re on the cutting edge of this AI wave. Most people don’t even know what AI is and most of those who do don’t understand what claude -p is or its value We can do math. And this isn’t calculus, either, it’s just subtraction.
Lydia Hallie ✨@lydiahallie

@backnotprop @ClaudeDevs No extra cost, and yes it still runs on your subscription. claude -p just gets its own included(!) budget now,($20–$200/mo depending on plan) instead of sharing limits with interactive Claude Code ugly diagram but maybe it helps:

English
0
0
0
77
Taylor Eernisse
Taylor Eernisse@theirongolddev·
claude -p is how Anthropic told all of us to use Claude Code with a sub to build automated systems because it uses their harness under the hood. And now they’ve rug pulled that away too. They just nuked thousands and thousands of people’s hard work over the last few months, all for… what? And these people they nuked are their most ardent supporters, the individuals who built them their current user base, not the giant corporations who don’t even know what AI is let alone how to effectively use it inside their business.
English
0
0
1
132
Siddhant Sharma
Siddhant Sharma@subtlemusing·
@ClaudeDevs what are some use cases where claude -p was actually providing value over the interactive mode. It’s either Claude Code or SDK, no?
English
5
0
0
19.1K
ClaudeDevs
ClaudeDevs@ClaudeDevs·
Starting June 15, paid Claude plans can claim a dedicated monthly credit for programmatic usage. The credit covers usage of: - Claude Agent SDK - claude -p - Claude Code GitHub Actions - Third-party apps built on the Agent SDK
English
1.3K
1K
12.5K
10.2M
Tyler C. Laprade, CFA
Tyler C. Laprade, CFA@TylerCLaprade·
@DanielMiessler Am I "using Claude Code" if I use `claude -p` in my local scripts to resolve merge conflicts, filter commits to prepare release notes, etc?
English
1
0
7
328
ᴅᴀɴɪᴇʟ ᴍɪᴇssʟᴇʀ 🛡️
This Anthropic DevRel controversy is very strange if you take a moment to think about it. You can use all of Anthropic’s models for any product. Competing products. Doesn’t matter. Always have been able to. There’s ALSO a Claude Code discount model. And in order to use that special, discounted price (here’s the shocker) you have to use Claude Code. Meanwhile gpt-5.5 API pricing is way more expensive than Opus 4.7. But nobody even notices. So the whole damn thing comes down to three things: 1. It wasn’t clear in the beginning that the subscriptions were only for Claude Code, so the switch-up was jarring 2. The communication on the whole thing has been atrocious. The team talking about features is fantastic, which makes it even more stark when the pricing story doesn’t match 3. People must MASSIVELY prefer using Claude Code, otherwise they wouldn’t be so pissed about having to use something else (Theo basically has an Anthropic podcast at this point) Just a massive amount of confusion on this whole thing. All three of these had to fail at the same time. If it was clear in the beginning that it was a Claude-Code-only subscription, nobody would care. If Anthropic hadn’t fumbled the messaging like 7 times in a row, nobody would care. And if the alternatives were anywhere near as good, nobody would care. But all three are false simultaneously, and so now the perception has become reality and a mass-migration off of Anthropic is in progress.
English
23
6
72
15.7K
Chuck Player
Chuck Player@chuck_player·
@DanielMiessler Where is the data for this "mass-migration"? Would be interesting to see the source and what the numbers look like. Also, twitter/reddit developers aren't much different than gamers; some number of them are going to be loudly, irreconcilably angry no matter what happens.
English
2
0
0
347
Taylor Eernisse
Taylor Eernisse@theirongolddev·
THIS. This was the biggest and most frustrating shocker this week. This has been a kosher, blessed way of using Claude Code with a sub all through the chaos because it still uses the harness under the hood, which is what Anthropic wanted to make sure people used on sub. But now all the sudden they require a human be sitting in front of and interacting with the session??? It’s all so arbitrary
English
0
0
1
26
Marlon Burnett
Marlon Burnett@burn10_dev·
@DanielMiessler “claude -p” is still Claude Code afaik and they removed that possibility using a subscription too…
English
1
0
3
148
Taylor Eernisse retweetledi
🇺🇸 Thomas A. Whitaker
🇺🇸 Thomas A. Whitaker@WhitakerTA_·
Nobody is telling you what Trump actually did by bringing 30 CEOs to Beijing. 🚨 TRUMP DIDN'T SEND DIPLOMATS TO CHINA. HE SENT THE ENTIRE AMERICAN ECONOMY. Jensen Huang. Tim Cook. Elon Musk. Larry Fink. Boeing. BlackRock. JPMorgan. Meta. Visa. Not deputies. Not undersecretaries. The number one from each empire — on Air Force One — walking into Xi Jinping's room. Nobody is talking about what that actually signals: → Jensen Huang was a LAST-MINUTE addition — specifically to put AI and chips on the table in person → This is the first U.S. presidential visit to China in nearly a decade → Trump's framing wasn't "we want a deal" — it was "they're here to pay respect AND do business" → The message: America isn't asking. America is presenting terms. → 100% reciprocal — or the room full of titans walks out This isn't normal summit protocol. Normal summits send the State Department. Normal summits send the vice president. Trump sent the people who actually build, manufacture, invest, and deploy capital at scale — and told Xi: these are the bosses. They came here. That means something. In 2017, Trump told Beijing he didn't blame China for exploiting weak American presidents. He blamed the presidents. In 2026, he showed up with proof that era is over. The media is covering the handshake. They're NOT showing you that the most concentrated display of American private-sector power ever assembled just sat down across from the Chinese Communist Party and said: we're open — but it'll be reciprocal. That's not diplomacy. That's leverage walking into a room and introducing itself. I'll share more updates shortly, turn on notifications before it's too late.
English
443
3.7K
15.2K
500.7K
Samswara
Samswara@samswoora·
Just walked in on my wife: - pumping breastmilk - watching survivor - running claude code - managing her team in slack Unfathomable levels of locked in. Feminine cyborg
English
84
156
6.8K
368.7K
Taylor Eernisse
Taylor Eernisse@theirongolddev·
@mattgperry You’re confused because it seems crazy that one company would create so much drama and backlash over and over without there being a concrete reason that other companies also face There is no reason other than to drive randos away to free compute for enterprise
English
0
0
0
32
Taylor Eernisse
Taylor Eernisse@theirongolddev·
@adamwathan It’s a naming thing. He’s referring to the Codex desktop app. You can now connect to your desktop running the Codex desktop app from your phone For the life of me I don’t know why companies keep reusing the same names to refer to completely different paradigms
English
9
1
89
40.6K
Taylor Eernisse
Taylor Eernisse@theirongolddev·
OpenAI isn’t making it an either-or scenario. That’s the biggest difference. And I’m not saying Anthropic’s choice to focus on enterprise is wrong at all - the disappointment is that they’ve chosen to be so hard nosed about forcing compliance with their perception of how their product should be used. Historically this approach to business rarely pays off in the ways execs think it will when they create these kinds of limitations. And their choice to do their best to spin every downgrade as an upside is insulting. Just be honest about what you’re doing and why. It’s not even that hard to figure out.
English
0
0
1
7
pitching downrange
pitching downrange@OwnerEmeritus·
This is just me musing based on nothing: OAI is at least being straight about the enterprise pivot. But they seem to, at least short term, still be leaning hard on funding subsidies and/or betting that winning enterprise can drive huge margins and loss-lead consumer. In this space, there is no Microsoft or Adobe-type incumbent. To win those enterprise contracts, you need people inside the customer to vouch for your product. Nobody can vouch for something they’re personally priced out of using.
English
1
0
0
29
Lydia Hallie ✨
Lydia Hallie ✨@lydiahallie·
To add some clarity: you don't pay extra. It's the same subscription, same price per month. What's new our sub now covers two separate pools: · Interactive → sub limits, unchanged · Programmatic → new $20–$200 included(!!) credit, metered at API rates
Lydia Hallie ✨ tweet media
ClaudeDevs@ClaudeDevs

Starting June 15, paid Claude plans can claim a dedicated monthly credit for programmatic usage. The credit covers usage of: - Claude Agent SDK - claude -p - Claude Code GitHub Actions - Third-party apps built on the Agent SDK

English
345
53
773
546.1K
Taylor Eernisse
Taylor Eernisse@theirongolddev·
@Notarea85633502 @theo If you’re paying the sub why are you worried about dollar spend amounts? It’s all theoretical spend on a sub
English
0
0
2
104
Nota realperson
Nota realperson@Notarea85633502·
@theo I must be doing something wrong. Cost me 30 bucks to put a controller behind a different auth guard the other day. And it did it poorly. Definitely need to give it more time.
English
5
0
1
726
Theo - t3.gg
Theo - t3.gg@theo·
Kind of crazy that Anthropic spends more time trying to lock out better apps and harnesses instead of just fixing Claude Code
English
126
73
2.4K
212K