5 ms·

Without a definition of thought as work, the entire argument of AI productivity is noise. The value of AI to work is utterly unquantifiable. But command of hum

• BlackjackCF 1y ago
  I always find the X% of developers use AI tools for their work suspect because I know many people who are being pressured by their company to adopt AI tools for their day to day workflows.
  • Our_Benefactors 1y ago
    As they should be. It’s a necessary tool to learn. If your entire dev team circa 2010 was writing code in notepad++ and sharing code versions in a zip file, you would push them to use an IDE and source control. It’s the same concept.
    • Terr_ 1y ago
      That's true insofar as there is friction to adoption. But whether $THING should be adopted and whether it does increase long-term productivity is nowhere near as clear-cut.
      • Our_Benefactors 1y ago
        Have you used it? It should be, and does.
        • bandrami 1y ago
          Did you read the article? It cites the METR study[1] which showed that while people using AI tools to program report feeling like they are producing more, they are in fact producing about 20% less than without the tools. Ironically you could get the same effect and save compute fees by simply having programmers stay home one day a week. [1] 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...
          • Our_Benefactors 1y ago
            Did you read the article? > We do not provide evidence that: AI systems do not currently speed up many or most software developers
            • bandrami 1y ago
              Correct, it only shows that AI slows down experienced developers, which is who the thread is about.
          • CamperBob2 1y ago
            That study is straight out of the school that measures productivity in kLOC. Completely worthless except as fuel for Internet arguments and poorly-informed policymaking.
            • bandrami 1y ago
              OK, should be easy to find a better study then, right?
              • CamperBob2 1y ago
                Not my job. Ask your friendly neighborhood LLM, maybe.
                • bandrami 1y ago
                  If I wanted advice from someone who was confidently wrong I would talk to a project manager
    • bandrami 1y ago
      Why should it be necessary to adopt a tool that reduces your productivity by 20%?
      • Our_Benefactors 1y ago
        Please provide supporting evidence of this wild claim.
        • Terr_ 1y ago
          I suggest checking the HN submission before giving up. > Most alarmingly, the METR study found experienced developers took 19% longer with AI tools, despite believing they’d sped up by 20%.
          • Our_Benefactors 1y ago
            Did you read the article? > We do not provide evidence that: AI systems do not currently speed up many or most software developers
            • deleted 1y ago
              [deleted]
            • Terr_ 1y ago
              > many or most You act like that's a "gotcha" instead of a normal thing. All they mean by that [0] is that can't mathematically prove their developers/tasks/tool are representative for of the majority of worldwide developers/tasks/tools. You're demanding an unreasonable level of investment for anyone to "prove a negative." The burden of proof lies on the people claiming zillion-fold boosts in productivity across "enough" places that they don't really define. This is especially true because they could profit in the process, as opposed to other people burning money to prove a point. [0] 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...
        • bandrami 1y ago
  • o11c 1y ago
    Yeah that's an outright fraudulent claim. But most fraud is legal, and most illegal fraud never sees legal action taken against it.