[Our_Benefactors]

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_]

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]

Have you used it? It should be, and does.

[bandrami]

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-o...

[CamperBob2]

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]

OK, should be easy to find a better study then, right?

[CamperBob2]

Not my job. Ask your friendly neighborhood LLM, maybe.

[Our_Benefactors]

Did you read the article?

> We do not provide evidence that: AI systems do not currently speed up many or most software developers

[bandrami]

Correct, it only shows that AI slows down experienced developers, which is who the thread is about.

[bandrami]

Why should it be necessary to adopt a tool that reduces your productivity by 20%?

[Our_Benefactors]

Please provide supporting evidence of this wild claim.

[Terr_]

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]

Did you read the article?

> We do not provide evidence that: AI systems do not currently speed up many or most software developers

[Terr_]

> 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-o...

[bandrami]

Literally in the article posted

[000ooo000]

If you want to shit talk LLMs, you better come armed with research, buddy. Claims about how it will revolutionise every profession just need n=1 anecdata though.

[Terr_]

Historical comparison: "I just had a pizza delivered on the new Segway and it was super duper cool because they came right into the conference center, so say goodbye to cars and bikes, by 2025 it's all going to be Personal People Movers!"

That said, I think LLMs will have a bigger effect than a self-balancing scooter, both positively and negatively.

[Our_Benefactors]

Did you read the article?

> We do not provide evidence that: AI systems do not currently speed up many or most software developers

[bandrami]

Correct, the study showed that it slows down experienced developers. We don't know what it does to inexperienced developers so that sounds like a good research topic. But it still leads to the question of why experienced developers should be told to adopt it, given that it slows them down.