3 ms·

You are not alone. There are plenty of us, see here: - Claude Code is a Slot Machine https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44702046 https://news.ycombinator.com

by ath3nd 1y ago

You are not alone. There are plenty of us, see here: - Claude Code is a Slot Machine https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44702046 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44702046 - GPTs and Feeling Left Behind: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44851214 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44851214 - I also used the Emperor/clothes metaphor: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44854649 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44854649 And just so we are clear, in the only current actual study measuring productivity of experienced developers so far, it actually led to 19% decline in productivity. https://metr.org/blog/2025-07-10-early-2025-ai-experienced-os-dev-study/ https://metr.org/blog/2025-07-10-early-2025-ai-experienced-o... So, if the study showed experienced developers had a decline in productivity, and some developers claim gains in theirs, there is high chance that the people reporting the gains are...less experienced developers. See, some claim that we are not using LLMs right (skills issue on our part) and that's why we are not getting the gains they do, but maybe it's the other way around: they are getting gains from LLMs because they are not experienced developers (skills issue on their part).

verdverm 1y ago
I'll wait for more studies about productivity, one data point is not solid foundation, there are a lot of people who want this to be true, and the models and agent systems are still getting better I'm an experience (20y) developer and these tools have saved me many hours on a regular basis, easily covering the monthly costs many times over
- jimbokun 1y ago
  There’s not enough data…which somehow proves your pre-existing bias which goes against the only data we have.
  - verdverm 1y ago
    I'm offering my anecdotal evidence as contrary to the loss of productivity piece that has been making the rounds, not as justification that they are wrong, but that we don't have enough data It's also not the only data, here's one with results in the other direction https://medium.com/@sahin.samia/can-ai-really-boost-developer-productivity-new-study-reveals-a-26-increase-1f34e70b5341 https://medium.com/@sahin.samia/can-ai-really-boost-develope...
    - jimbokun 1y ago
      Glad to see more data! It’s interesting they showed the biggest gains for junior developers. The other study showing productivity losses for experienced developers. That suggests these tools are a lot more helpful for junior developers compared to senior developers at the moment.
      - verdverm 1y ago
        From my experience, a senior dev who knows how to work these tools will be better than both. We need data on how long, and how much effort into developing the skill, working with AI a developer has put in. Theore you use it, the more you get a feel for when and when not to use it
    - AstralStorm 1y ago
      > Productivity was tracked through metrics such as completed tasks (pull requests), code commits, and successful builds. Making untested garbage faster to check off tasks quicker. Reopen rate please? New bug task rate? Nobody looked... > The study also monitored code quality via build success rates. Importantly, increased productivity did not come at the cost of more errors, showing that Copilot helped developers code faster and more accurately. It builds therefore it works. And the test suite was also AI generated? Feels like we're back in primary school learning programming. Classic case of gaming the metrics.
      - verdverm 1y ago
        You sound like you haven't given Copilot and friends a thorough chance or evaluation. If you had, you'd know that... - people don't outsource, they pair-program, because these things cannot do complex tasks on their own - they are quite good at running tests with coverage, inspecting the results, and fixing both the tests and code - people make mistakes, expecting AI to be perfect is unreasonable, they are tools, not replacements > Making untested garbage faster to check off tasks quicker > Feels like we're back in primary school learning programming. > Classic case of gaming the metrics. plain view bias causes others to discount your opinion
Mars008 1y ago
> So, if the study showed experienced developers had a decline in productivity, You forgot to add: first time users, and within their comfort zone. Because it would be completely different result if they were experienced with AI or outside of their usual domain.
ants_everywhere 1y ago
Your comments are citing this blog post and arxiv preprint. You are also misrepresenting the literature. There are many papers about LLMs and productivity. You can find them on Google Scholar and elsewhere. The evidence is clear that LLMs make people more productive. Your one cherry picked preprint will get included in future review papers if it gets published.
- treuullo 1y ago
  Good thing you linked to these articles that support your claims, otherwise I would be left feeling like you are misrepresenting the literature to push your own agenda.
  - ants_everywhere 1y ago
    You have the ability to search Google Scholar, I'm quite sure of it
    - treuullo 1y ago
      I do, and did, and found you were spreading misinformation.
      - ants_everywhere 1y ago
        This is false, but the nice thing is that anyone can go check it and don't have to rely on the claims of an account created specifically to reply to me.
        treuullo 1y ago
        This is false, this account was made specifically to inform people that a correct proof of P=NP is on Google Scholar. Go check it!
    - saturn_vk 1y ago
      I found nothing. Could you share the links you found, or are you lying

by ath3nd 1y ago

verdverm 1y ago

I'll wait for more studies about productivity, one data point is not solid foundation, there are a lot of people who want this to be true, and the models and agent systems are still getting better I'm an experience (20y) developer and these tools have saved me many hours on a regular basis, easily covering the monthly costs many times over

jimbokun 1y ago
There’s not enough data…which somehow proves your pre-existing bias which goes against the only data we have.
- verdverm 1y ago
  I'm offering my anecdotal evidence as contrary to the loss of productivity piece that has been making the rounds, not as justification that they are wrong, but that we don't have enough data It's also not the only data, here's one with results in the other direction https://medium.com/@sahin.samia/can-ai-really-boost-developer-productivity-new-study-reveals-a-26-increase-1f34e70b5341 https://medium.com/@sahin.samia/can-ai-really-boost-develope...
  - jimbokun 1y ago
    Glad to see more data! It’s interesting they showed the biggest gains for junior developers. The other study showing productivity losses for experienced developers. That suggests these tools are a lot more helpful for junior developers compared to senior developers at the moment.
    - verdverm 1y ago
      From my experience, a senior dev who knows how to work these tools will be better than both. We need data on how long, and how much effort into developing the skill, working with AI a developer has put in. Theore you use it, the more you get a feel for when and when not to use it
  - AstralStorm 1y ago
    > Productivity was tracked through metrics such as completed tasks (pull requests), code commits, and successful builds. Making untested garbage faster to check off tasks quicker. Reopen rate please? New bug task rate? Nobody looked... > The study also monitored code quality via build success rates. Importantly, increased productivity did not come at the cost of more errors, showing that Copilot helped developers code faster and more accurately. It builds therefore it works. And the test suite was also AI generated? Feels like we're back in primary school learning programming. Classic case of gaming the metrics.
    - verdverm 1y ago
      You sound like you haven't given Copilot and friends a thorough chance or evaluation. If you had, you'd know that... - people don't outsource, they pair-program, because these things cannot do complex tasks on their own - they are quite good at running tests with coverage, inspecting the results, and fixing both the tests and code - people make mistakes, expecting AI to be perfect is unreasonable, they are tools, not replacements > Making untested garbage faster to check off tasks quicker > Feels like we're back in primary school learning programming. > Classic case of gaming the metrics. plain view bias causes others to discount your opinion

Mars008 1y ago

> So, if the study showed experienced developers had a decline in productivity, You forgot to add: first time users, and within their comfort zone. Because it would be completely different result if they were experienced with AI or outside of their usual domain.

ants_everywhere 1y ago

Your comments are citing this blog post and arxiv preprint. You are also misrepresenting the literature. There are many papers about LLMs and productivity. You can find them on Google Scholar and elsewhere. The evidence is clear that LLMs make people more productive. Your one cherry picked preprint will get included in future review papers if it gets published.

treuullo 1y ago
Good thing you linked to these articles that support your claims, otherwise I would be left feeling like you are misrepresenting the literature to push your own agenda.
- ants_everywhere 1y ago
  You have the ability to search Google Scholar, I'm quite sure of it
  - treuullo 1y ago
    I do, and did, and found you were spreading misinformation.
    - ants_everywhere 1y ago
      This is false, but the nice thing is that anyone can go check it and don't have to rely on the claims of an account created specifically to reply to me.
      - treuullo 1y ago
        This is false, this account was made specifically to inform people that a correct proof of P=NP is on Google Scholar. Go check it!
  - saturn_vk 1y ago
    I found nothing. Could you share the links you found, or are you lying