5 ms·

Ask HN: Using AI daily but not seeing productivity gains – is it just me?

23 points by grandimam 1y ago

d00mB0t 1y ago
I think of AI as a better version of Google. There's a lot of Hype around AI and productivity, I don't think it will make anyone a 10x programmer.
- paulcole 1y ago
  How many 10x programmers have you known? How many 0.5x programmers have you known? Do you think AI can make a 0.5x programmer a 2x programmer?
- cookiemonsieur 1y ago
  Exactly, for me it's just a glorified stack overflow.
  - skydhash 1y ago
    It’s more like a dangerous/annoying stack overflow, but useful enough that you still use it (when you get past the ethics of how it was made). But it’s not something I would pay for (I’d pay to be part of a programmer community or access to curated raw material like documentation (like MDN or the old Apple documentation))
- jf22 1y ago
  What AI code gen tools have you tried?
repsiace 1y ago
I work daily in Cursor, producing around 200k lines of code per week, though only a small portion ends up being truly effective (still significantly more than what I could achieve on my own before). I think we need to adapt to these changes and focus on shaping better workflows to fully harness the potential of AI.
- boothby 1y ago
  I've gotta ask. Who wants you to write that much code and why?
  - repsiace 1y ago
    It's just one way of working. In reality, I only need a few thousand lines of effective code out of it. If I were to do it all on my own, it would likely take two to three times longer—perhaps with better or worse quality. While LLMs generate code incredibly fast, the full process of trial, error, and debugging takes more time. Additionally, since this involves multiple projects and contexts, a lot of junk code inevitably gets generated along the way.
    - mittensc 1y ago
      > In reality, I only need a few thousand lines of effective code out of it. If I were to do it all on my own, it would likely take two to three times longer—perhaps with better or worse quality. Have you tried doing it on your own as comparison? Any lessons why that might be true? Are you missing some design/brainstorming stage that you are doing now by iterating through junk code and which might not be necessary? You might be right now, but you gain experience that you otherwise lose by delegating to the LLM. With experience the reverse might be true.
- mittensc 1y ago
  Why do you need yo write that much? Is it all just throw away code to test out ideas? Would libraries to help abstract stuff and you writing a few lines at a higher lever be better? Since you throw away most of the code, could you design a bit before jumping to code and just develop something near desired solution?
- joshstrange 1y ago
  That works out to 5K/hr (200k/5/8), that’s absurd verging on insane. It’s over a line of code a second. I’d fire someone who was putting out that “code”. Seriously, there is no way someone can review all that code so you must be solo (or at a place that doesn’t code review). If you aren’t reviewing your code then you are “vibe coding” (said with maximum derision) and what you are “building” is a house of cards.
mittensc 1y ago
I am in the same boat. I don't need AI to generate code. Pipelines are non existant (who wants useless code?, just make better abstractions) Copy-and-paste code is non existant - taboo to duplicate, just find libraries to reuse within the project or write them. I don't need it to write tests, I want to write tests myself to force myself to think of the problem. Code base is large enough that it's generally useless for search (and old tools work much better) And I don't see what else it would be useful for though I'm trying. (writing a class skeleton?, maybe?, but then, I can do that fast as well)
- herbst 1y ago
  From your examples the libraries are what AI is actually helpful for me. If I find any API I want to use I let the Claude built an API wrapper for me. Or any other specific issues that typically end up in a Lib. So a isolated, single purpose file that doesn't depend on any other files where the code base already includes similar files where it can steal the style from. This is a situation where it does really well usually without breaking anything.
  - mittensc 1y ago
    Fair point, I'll give it a go to see for myself, thanks. Alternative, if it's web calls then openAPI and a specific generator will work faster long term... (write generator once then import swagger files for whatever you need or tell claude to generate the swagger if not available?) That would help with api changes longer term (just update swagger file, regen code and update where needed) If it's actual library calls (C/C++), then why would wrapper be needed?, doesn't add yet-anothet-layer that makes things more difficult to grasp?
    - herbst 1y ago
      I am mostly coding with ruby so I constantly find myself wrapping APIs or Linux tools to get things done faster. Usually I just send a link to the API doc with a sentence or two to let it wrap one or two functions leading to small, specialized and mostly efficient wrappers without overhead. Easy to fix should something change. It's just a random aspect where I find AI to work really well for coding (for me).
dexterlagan 1y ago
I feel ya, but there's a better way. I've been writing detailed specs to direct LLMs, and that's what changed everything for me. I wrote about it at length: https://www.cleverthinkingsoftware.com/spec-first-development-the-missing-manual-for-building-with-ai/ https://www.cleverthinkingsoftware.com/spec-first-developmen...
- android521 1y ago
  That's crazy. I would rather write code than spec
  - sodothat 1y ago
    So boot your Rpi and do that I’d rather shared infrastructure fit a stability and correctness spec than fit the whims of some random programmers throwing a fit and refusing to adapt. I suppose you’re fine with bridges built haphazardly and airplanes with doors that fall off. There’s real infrastructure under the software that powers critical logistics. Such systems really should just be simple and straightforward. You want ornate meta software structures? Have at it on your personal laptop like a proper h4xx0r If you’re a real practitioner of the craft you’ll do it for free in your basement. If you’re just trying to unicorn you’re just a traditional capitalist and that’s boring.
- Avalaxy 1y ago
  Interesting read! My personal experience with Cursor aligns with this. The initial result of my prompt was stunningly good, but adjusting the code afterwards was not a great time. It also aligns with the software 3.0 concept pitched by Andrej Karpathy, making the english language (or other natural language) the new 'code'.
- skydhash 1y ago
  The issue with this is that code is the final form of specs, but fit for machine execution. Coding is mostly f(a, b, c, d, e, …) where all the variables are specifications. Iterating on specs is tweaking individual variables. You’re still missing the broader interactions between them, and sometimes, the formula itself changes (discarding some variables and getting new ones). And as soon as you hit production, the function is recursive (code is part of the things to take into account) So, specs is more like an historical archive of decisions taken. I prefer to take a change request (ticket) transform it into a list of requirements, then apply that against the code rather than iterating through old specs in order to produce a new version of the code. So it becomes f(z, k) where z is the specs for the change and k the old code, instead of f(a, b, c, …, z) (without k) where a and the others are updated specs and z is the new one. ADDENDUM In other words, specs are like memos while the code is the company policy handbook. No one edits past memos, you just issue new one, and then edit the handbook. So I rather have code versions (git commits, …) that links to change requests, which link to discussion and analysis. Not dealing with a pile of documents.
herbst 1y ago
Auto complete actually saves me a lot time. Discussing and fixing architecture Claude has built often takes just as long as just building it. But tab/automcomplete is crazy. (Especially for html layouts and repetitive changes)
ifonlyenigmax 1y ago
For me, AI mostly simplifies life rather than complicates it. Definitely a productivity helper, even if it’s not magic.
joshstrange 1y ago
For me, Copilot is the sweet spot (or insert your favorite auto-complete tool). It saves me significant time when coding and I’ve gotten really good at knowing when it pause for 1-2 seconds and then have it spit out the suggestion I hoped it would. Agentic workflows are cool and have their place but essentially turn me into a full time code reviewer. Sometimes that’s acceptable/ok, sometimes I don’t like it. Essentially, if the agent gets even slightly off the path I want it on, I need to just do it myself. I give up on trying to prompt my out of a mistake it made. You get stuck thinking “one more prompt/round and it will fix the problem and everything will be perfect”, then you find yourself 4+ rounds in with the agent flip-flopping between 2 things it’s already tried.
- softwaredoug 1y ago
  I agree. I find agentic coding workflows too cumbersome and time consuming. If I truly need to generate a starter project I just talk to ChatGPT.
throwaway843 1y ago
Everyone's answering about using it for coding and deep knowledge work. But what about the opposite: all the other stuff that's surface? Today I had it fill out a calendar, to generate test data meeting specs, to do some simple translation, to proof some reading, to search. If there's a task that can be directed and it takes less time to direct than do, it's a productivity gain.
- skydhash 1y ago
  There are better and faster tools for those.
obayesshelton 1y ago
I am not using Cursor as my IDE I typically get Claude or Gemini to give me feedback about a specific piece of code. However, my biggest gripe with any of the LLMs or Tools is that they do not suggest package / library to solve my issue. For example I wanted to do something with GEOJSON and it wrote a heap of code. In most cases for such things I would also use a well maintained and documented package. I keep thinking that I need to write something that suggest a package / libary before writing code.
rajeshpatel15 1y ago
It’s not just you,I’ve seen this too. The key is that AI magnifies your existing workflow: if your process is inefficient, AI just automates the chaos. Instead of open-ended prompts, focus AI on narrow, high-friction tasks like refactoring code or drafting documentation. Track one metric (e.g., hours saved weekly) to cut through the hype real gains hide in boring tasks, not flashy demos. What specific area feels unproductive for you? Maybe the community can spot the gap.

23 points by grandimam 1y ago

I think of AI as a better version of Google. There's a lot of Hype around AI and productivity, I don't think it will make anyone a 10x programmer.

paulcole 1y ago
How many 10x programmers have you known? How many 0.5x programmers have you known? Do you think AI can make a 0.5x programmer a 2x programmer?
cookiemonsieur 1y ago
Exactly, for me it's just a glorified stack overflow.
- skydhash 1y ago
  It’s more like a dangerous/annoying stack overflow, but useful enough that you still use it (when you get past the ethics of how it was made). But it’s not something I would pay for (I’d pay to be part of a programmer community or access to curated raw material like documentation (like MDN or the old Apple documentation))
jf22 1y ago
What AI code gen tools have you tried?

repsiace 1y ago

I work daily in Cursor, producing around 200k lines of code per week, though only a small portion ends up being truly effective (still significantly more than what I could achieve on my own before). I think we need to adapt to these changes and focus on shaping better workflows to fully harness the potential of AI.

boothby 1y ago
I've gotta ask. Who wants you to write that much code and why?
- repsiace 1y ago
  It's just one way of working. In reality, I only need a few thousand lines of effective code out of it. If I were to do it all on my own, it would likely take two to three times longer—perhaps with better or worse quality. While LLMs generate code incredibly fast, the full process of trial, error, and debugging takes more time. Additionally, since this involves multiple projects and contexts, a lot of junk code inevitably gets generated along the way.
  - mittensc 1y ago
    > In reality, I only need a few thousand lines of effective code out of it. If I were to do it all on my own, it would likely take two to three times longer—perhaps with better or worse quality. Have you tried doing it on your own as comparison? Any lessons why that might be true? Are you missing some design/brainstorming stage that you are doing now by iterating through junk code and which might not be necessary? You might be right now, but you gain experience that you otherwise lose by delegating to the LLM. With experience the reverse might be true.
mittensc 1y ago
Why do you need yo write that much? Is it all just throw away code to test out ideas? Would libraries to help abstract stuff and you writing a few lines at a higher lever be better? Since you throw away most of the code, could you design a bit before jumping to code and just develop something near desired solution?
joshstrange 1y ago
That works out to 5K/hr (200k/5/8), that’s absurd verging on insane. It’s over a line of code a second. I’d fire someone who was putting out that “code”. Seriously, there is no way someone can review all that code so you must be solo (or at a place that doesn’t code review). If you aren’t reviewing your code then you are “vibe coding” (said with maximum derision) and what you are “building” is a house of cards.

mittensc 1y ago

I am in the same boat. I don't need AI to generate code. Pipelines are non existant (who wants useless code?, just make better abstractions) Copy-and-paste code is non existant - taboo to duplicate, just find libraries to reuse within the project or write them. I don't need it to write tests, I want to write tests myself to force myself to think of the problem. Code base is large enough that it's generally useless for search (and old tools work much better) And I don't see what else it would be useful for though I'm trying. (writing a class skeleton?, maybe?, but then, I can do that fast as well)

herbst 1y ago
From your examples the libraries are what AI is actually helpful for me. If I find any API I want to use I let the Claude built an API wrapper for me. Or any other specific issues that typically end up in a Lib. So a isolated, single purpose file that doesn't depend on any other files where the code base already includes similar files where it can steal the style from. This is a situation where it does really well usually without breaking anything.
- mittensc 1y ago
  Fair point, I'll give it a go to see for myself, thanks. Alternative, if it's web calls then openAPI and a specific generator will work faster long term... (write generator once then import swagger files for whatever you need or tell claude to generate the swagger if not available?) That would help with api changes longer term (just update swagger file, regen code and update where needed) If it's actual library calls (C/C++), then why would wrapper be needed?, doesn't add yet-anothet-layer that makes things more difficult to grasp?
  - herbst 1y ago
    I am mostly coding with ruby so I constantly find myself wrapping APIs or Linux tools to get things done faster. Usually I just send a link to the API doc with a sentence or two to let it wrap one or two functions leading to small, specialized and mostly efficient wrappers without overhead. Easy to fix should something change. It's just a random aspect where I find AI to work really well for coding (for me).

dexterlagan 1y ago

I feel ya, but there's a better way. I've been writing detailed specs to direct LLMs, and that's what changed everything for me. I wrote about it at length: https://www.cleverthinkingsoftware.com/spec-first-development-the-missing-manual-for-building-with-ai/ https://www.cleverthinkingsoftware.com/spec-first-developmen...

android521 1y ago
That's crazy. I would rather write code than spec
- sodothat 1y ago
  So boot your Rpi and do that I’d rather shared infrastructure fit a stability and correctness spec than fit the whims of some random programmers throwing a fit and refusing to adapt. I suppose you’re fine with bridges built haphazardly and airplanes with doors that fall off. There’s real infrastructure under the software that powers critical logistics. Such systems really should just be simple and straightforward. You want ornate meta software structures? Have at it on your personal laptop like a proper h4xx0r If you’re a real practitioner of the craft you’ll do it for free in your basement. If you’re just trying to unicorn you’re just a traditional capitalist and that’s boring.
Avalaxy 1y ago
Interesting read! My personal experience with Cursor aligns with this. The initial result of my prompt was stunningly good, but adjusting the code afterwards was not a great time. It also aligns with the software 3.0 concept pitched by Andrej Karpathy, making the english language (or other natural language) the new 'code'.
skydhash 1y ago
The issue with this is that code is the final form of specs, but fit for machine execution. Coding is mostly f(a, b, c, d, e, …) where all the variables are specifications. Iterating on specs is tweaking individual variables. You’re still missing the broader interactions between them, and sometimes, the formula itself changes (discarding some variables and getting new ones). And as soon as you hit production, the function is recursive (code is part of the things to take into account) So, specs is more like an historical archive of decisions taken. I prefer to take a change request (ticket) transform it into a list of requirements, then apply that against the code rather than iterating through old specs in order to produce a new version of the code. So it becomes f(z, k) where z is the specs for the change and k the old code, instead of f(a, b, c, …, z) (without k) where a and the others are updated specs and z is the new one. ADDENDUM In other words, specs are like memos while the code is the company policy handbook. No one edits past memos, you just issue new one, and then edit the handbook. So I rather have code versions (git commits, …) that links to change requests, which link to discussion and analysis. Not dealing with a pile of documents.

herbst 1y ago

Auto complete actually saves me a lot time. Discussing and fixing architecture Claude has built often takes just as long as just building it. But tab/automcomplete is crazy. (Especially for html layouts and repetitive changes)

ifonlyenigmax 1y ago

For me, AI mostly simplifies life rather than complicates it. Definitely a productivity helper, even if it’s not magic.

joshstrange 1y ago

For me, Copilot is the sweet spot (or insert your favorite auto-complete tool). It saves me significant time when coding and I’ve gotten really good at knowing when it pause for 1-2 seconds and then have it spit out the suggestion I hoped it would. Agentic workflows are cool and have their place but essentially turn me into a full time code reviewer. Sometimes that’s acceptable/ok, sometimes I don’t like it. Essentially, if the agent gets even slightly off the path I want it on, I need to just do it myself. I give up on trying to prompt my out of a mistake it made. You get stuck thinking “one more prompt/round and it will fix the problem and everything will be perfect”, then you find yourself 4+ rounds in with the agent flip-flopping between 2 things it’s already tried.

softwaredoug 1y ago
I agree. I find agentic coding workflows too cumbersome and time consuming. If I truly need to generate a starter project I just talk to ChatGPT.

throwaway843 1y ago

Everyone's answering about using it for coding and deep knowledge work. But what about the opposite: all the other stuff that's surface? Today I had it fill out a calendar, to generate test data meeting specs, to do some simple translation, to proof some reading, to search. If there's a task that can be directed and it takes less time to direct than do, it's a productivity gain.

skydhash 1y ago
There are better and faster tools for those.

obayesshelton 1y ago

I am not using Cursor as my IDE I typically get Claude or Gemini to give me feedback about a specific piece of code. However, my biggest gripe with any of the LLMs or Tools is that they do not suggest package / library to solve my issue. For example I wanted to do something with GEOJSON and it wrote a heap of code. In most cases for such things I would also use a well maintained and documented package. I keep thinking that I need to write something that suggest a package / libary before writing code.

rajeshpatel15 1y ago

It’s not just you,I’ve seen this too. The key is that AI magnifies your existing workflow: if your process is inefficient, AI just automates the chaos. Instead of open-ended prompts, focus AI on narrow, high-friction tasks like refactoring code or drafting documentation. Track one metric (e.g., hours saved weekly) to cut through the hype real gains hide in boring tasks, not flashy demos. What specific area feels unproductive for you? Maybe the community can spot the gap.