Comment by onlyrealcuzzo
3 days ago
Theoretically, a large part of Amazon's worth is the skill of its workforce.
Some subset of the population likes to pretend their workforce is a cost that provides less than zero value or utility, and all the value and utility comes from shareholders.
But if this isn't true, and collective skill is worth value, then saying anyone can have that with AI at least has some headwind on your share price - which is all they care about.
Does that offset a potential tailwind from slightly higher margins?
I don't think any established company should be cheerleading that anyone can easily upset their monopoly with a couple of carefully crafted prompts.
It was always kind of strange to me, and seemed as though they were telling everyone, our moat is gone, and that is good.
If you really believed anyone could do anything with AI, then the risk of PEs collapsing would be high, which would be bad for the capital class. Now you have to correctly guess what's the next best thing constantly to keep your ROI instead of just parking it in save havens - like FAANG.
Amazon doesn't really work this way.
Bedrock/Q is a great example of how Amazon works. If we throw $XXX at the problem and YYY SDEs at the problem we should be able to build Github Copilot, GPT-3, OpenRouter and Cursor ourselves instead of trying to competitively acquire and attract talent. The fact that Codewhisperer, Q and Titan barely get spoken about on HN or Twitter tells you how successful this is.
But if you have that perspective then the equation is simple. If S3 can make 5 XXL features per year with 20 SDEs then if we adopt “Agentic AI” we should be able to build 10 XXL features with 10 SDEs.
Little care is given to organizational knowledge, experience, vision etc. that is the value (in their mind) of leadership not ICs.
What do you mean, “Amazon doesn’t really work that way”?
Parent is talking about how C-Suite doesn’t want to trumpet something that implies their entire corporate structure is extremely disadvantaged vs new entrants and your response is “Amazon wants to build everything themselves”?
Amazon isn’t some behaviorally deterministic entity, and it could (and should?) want to both preserve goodwill and build more internally vs pay multiples to acquire.
I guess it could be that people inside are not people they have to compete with, but it doesn’t seem like that’s what you're saying.
Amazon would probably say its worth is the machinery around workers that allows it to plug in arbitrary numbers of interchangeable people and have them be productive.