[bko]

I have written every line of code in the code base I mostly work in and I still find it incredibly valuable. Millions use these tools and a large percentage of them find them useful in their familiar code base.

Again, overwhelming anecdote and millions of users > "study"

[almatabata]

> Interestingly the developers predict that AI will make them faster, and continue to believe that it did make them faster, even after completing the task slower than they otherwise would!

In this case clearly anecdotes are not enough. If that quote from the article is accurate, it shows that you cannot trust the developers time perception.

I agree, its only one study and we should not take it as the final answer. It definitely justifies doing a few follow up evaluations to see if this

[overfeed]

> If that quote from the article is accurate, it shows that you cannot trust the developers time perception.

The scientific method goes right out the window when it comes to true believers. It reminds me of weed-smokers who insist getting high makes them deep-thinkers: it feels that way in the moment, but if you've ever been a sober person caught up in a "deep" discussion among people high on THC, oh boy...

[bko]

Or I cannot trust a contrived laboratory setting with it's garden of forking paths.

https://mleverything.substack.com/p/garden-of-forking-paths-...

[almatabata]

I did not say to trust it. I do not need to trust it.

If I run my own tests on my own codebase I will definitely use some objective time measurement method and a subjective one. I really want to know if there is a big difference.

I really wonder if its just the individuals bias showing. If you are pro-AI you might overestimate one, and if you are against it you might under-estimate it.

[bko]

That's fair, I agree.