It... literally is?

Or otherwise, can you share what you think the ratio is?

No, 1 is 1 more than 0. There’s a certain sense in which you could say that 1 is infinitely greater than 0, but only in an abstract, unquantifiable way. In this case, it doesn’t make sense to say you’re “infinitely more productive” because you’re producing something rather than nothing.

I just read it as a turn of phrase that says exactly that, that it means they produce something rather than nothing.

Only if you think that the phrase "two times more productive" is also nonsensical.

It goes like this:

"For any positive "x", is 1 x times greater than 0? Well, 0 times x is lower than 1, and 1 divided by x is larger than 0."

So his productivity increased by more than twice, more than ten times, more than a billion times, more than a googol times, more than Rayo's number. The only mathematically useful way to quantify it is to say his productivity is infinitely larger. Unless you want to settle for "can't be compared", which is less informative.

I think it's a pedantic point, but maybe they just meant that talking about 1 being multitudes greater than 0 implies multiplication. And since 1/0 is undefined that doesn't make much sense.

Someone attributing all of their productivity to a given tool and none to their own ingenuity and experience is allocating 100% credit to that tool.

It is not a ratio, it is a proportion.

Also, not invented here syndrome (NIH) is cool again.

Given that most of the 'vibe-coded' projects that I have seen that are worse versions of software that have been tested and stand the test of time.