3 ms·

I'm encouraging my folks to try it pretty hard because A) I've personally seen the productivity gains and B) using it is at first deeply weird/uncomfortable. So

I'm encouraging my folks to try it pretty hard because A) I've personally seen the productivity gains and B) using it is at first deeply weird/uncomfortable. Sometimes you've got to convince people to push through that kind of thing.

toomuchtodo 7mo ago
How you objectively measuring success? 93% of Developers Use AI Coding Tools. Productivity Hasn't Moved. - https://philippdubach.com/posts/93-of-developers-use-ai-coding-tools.-productivity-hasnt-moved./ https://philippdubach.com/posts/93-of-developers-use-ai-codi... - March 4th, 2026
- nightski 7mo ago
  They measured 16 developers and called it a "study"? That is amusing. Not to mention it was conducted almost a year ago, the tools have already changed dramatically.
  - tehjoker 7mo ago
    So just run a new study this year. I do think the tools have improved, but it should show up empirically. The only people for whom the urgency of "right now" is present is for the C-suite and investor class who are fighting to make sure they survive, but it might also be a crisis of their own making. Don't confuse your identity as a worker with the identity of the capitalist class.
    - jmalicki 7mo ago
      You should be able to just develop software on your cellphone, right? Do you have an empirical study to support that your employer should buy you a laptop and possibly a monitor or two to help your productivity? If there's no study, why should we believe it? It's like "A study found that parachutes were no more effective than empty backpacks at protecting jumpers from aircraft." https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/12/22/679083038/researchers-show-parachutes-dont-work-but-there-s-a-catch https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/12/22/6790830...
      - SpicyLemonZest 7mo ago
        I think my employer should buy me a laptop and possibly a monitor or two to help my productivity because I subjectively feel they'd be helpful, and I have the market power to insist on tools that I subjectively feel are helpful. If my CEO announced that monitors are super important and everyone will be tracked on monitor space usage going forwards, I would still want to see evidence that this is going to accomplish something.
        jmalicki 7mo ago
        Your CEO likewise subjectively feels all of their employees using AI will be helpful, and has the market power to insist that their employees use them. When engineers demand evidence that AI is productive, but not that having laptops and monitors are productive, it screams confirmation bias. "I'm right, you're wrong" as a default prior.
        SpicyLemonZest 7mo ago
        I wouldn't call it confirmation bias, but you're right that is my prior. If an executive and a line worker disagree about whether a tool is useful, I assume unless presented with evidence to the contrary that the executive is wrong. I would emphasize that I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with the converse either. If an executive is just absolutely convinced that dual monitors are a scam and nobody needs more than their laptop screen, they can run their company that way, and I'm sure there are many successful companies with that philosophy.
        archagon 7mo ago
        Sounds like it would be pretty productive for employees to unionize and replace their CEO with an LLM.
      - roarcher 7mo ago
        > It's like "A study found that parachutes were no more effective than empty backpacks at protecting jumpers from aircraft." Are you under the impression that we don't bother to empirically prove things that seem obvious, like the safety benefits of parachutes? You don't think parachute manufacturers test their designs and quantify their performance?
  - sarchertech 7mo ago
    Depending on the effect size a sample size of 16 can be plenty.
  - archagon 7mo ago
    > Not to mention it was conducted almost a year ago, the tools have already changed dramatically. There is no point at which this argument will not be made. Therefore, it is a useless argument.
  - notlenin 7mo ago
    > Not to mention it was conducted almost a year ago false. The article is from 4th of March 2026, less than a month ago.
    - mkl 7mo ago
      From the first sentence of the article proper: "A study published in July 2025".

toomuchtodo 7mo ago

How you objectively measuring success? 93% of Developers Use AI Coding Tools. Productivity Hasn't Moved. - https://philippdubach.com/posts/93-of-developers-use-ai-coding-tools.-productivity-hasnt-moved./ https://philippdubach.com/posts/93-of-developers-use-ai-codi... - March 4th, 2026

nightski 7mo ago
They measured 16 developers and called it a "study"? That is amusing. Not to mention it was conducted almost a year ago, the tools have already changed dramatically.
- tehjoker 7mo ago
  So just run a new study this year. I do think the tools have improved, but it should show up empirically. The only people for whom the urgency of "right now" is present is for the C-suite and investor class who are fighting to make sure they survive, but it might also be a crisis of their own making. Don't confuse your identity as a worker with the identity of the capitalist class.
  - jmalicki 7mo ago
    You should be able to just develop software on your cellphone, right? Do you have an empirical study to support that your employer should buy you a laptop and possibly a monitor or two to help your productivity? If there's no study, why should we believe it? It's like "A study found that parachutes were no more effective than empty backpacks at protecting jumpers from aircraft." https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/12/22/679083038/researchers-show-parachutes-dont-work-but-there-s-a-catch https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/12/22/6790830...
    - SpicyLemonZest 7mo ago
      I think my employer should buy me a laptop and possibly a monitor or two to help my productivity because I subjectively feel they'd be helpful, and I have the market power to insist on tools that I subjectively feel are helpful. If my CEO announced that monitors are super important and everyone will be tracked on monitor space usage going forwards, I would still want to see evidence that this is going to accomplish something.
      - jmalicki 7mo ago
        Your CEO likewise subjectively feels all of their employees using AI will be helpful, and has the market power to insist that their employees use them. When engineers demand evidence that AI is productive, but not that having laptops and monitors are productive, it screams confirmation bias. "I'm right, you're wrong" as a default prior.
        SpicyLemonZest 7mo ago
        I wouldn't call it confirmation bias, but you're right that is my prior. If an executive and a line worker disagree about whether a tool is useful, I assume unless presented with evidence to the contrary that the executive is wrong. I would emphasize that I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with the converse either. If an executive is just absolutely convinced that dual monitors are a scam and nobody needs more than their laptop screen, they can run their company that way, and I'm sure there are many successful companies with that philosophy.
        archagon 7mo ago
        Sounds like it would be pretty productive for employees to unionize and replace their CEO with an LLM.
    - roarcher 7mo ago
      > It's like "A study found that parachutes were no more effective than empty backpacks at protecting jumpers from aircraft." Are you under the impression that we don't bother to empirically prove things that seem obvious, like the safety benefits of parachutes? You don't think parachute manufacturers test their designs and quantify their performance?
- sarchertech 7mo ago
  Depending on the effect size a sample size of 16 can be plenty.
- archagon 7mo ago
  > Not to mention it was conducted almost a year ago, the tools have already changed dramatically. There is no point at which this argument will not be made. Therefore, it is a useless argument.
- notlenin 7mo ago
  > Not to mention it was conducted almost a year ago false. The article is from 4th of March 2026, less than a month ago.
  - mkl 7mo ago
    From the first sentence of the article proper: "A study published in July 2025".