[wisty]

Individual gains from llm seem much larger than net productivity increases. I think a major source of this discrepency is people creating more work for their coworkers at the speed of slop. Especially the people with no idea.

"I did a Chat output, please fix and review it " is the kind of thing that empowers the people who used to have a minimal productivity, and now lets them to wreck things on an industrial scale.

[yuye]

>"I did a Chat output, please fix and review it " is the kind of thing that empowers the people who used to have a minimal productivity, and now lets them to wreck things on an industrial scale.

AI is not a productivity multiplier. There are diminishing results.

The ones that notice the highest increases of productivity are usually the ones that were unproductive at best and dangerously incompetent at worst.

[zahlman]

> AI is not a productivity multiplier. There are diminishing results.

Sure it is. Just that some of the values being multiplied are negative.

[nomel]

Could you describe your usual workflows and usage patterns with AI?

[nomel]

I think this is a perfectly reasonable question. They're having a very different experience than many other people (including myself). It would be interesting to get an idea of why it's so different.

[yuye]

>Could you describe your usual workflows and usage patterns with AI?

I don't. I'm not a gambling man, and I respect my fellow engineers to not inundate them with slop.

[apsurd]

This is valid in the other direction as well. Principle engineers, CTOs, with legitimately earned authority end up using that authority to 100x their output onto the team as if it was a Godsend unlock.

It's not. There is no one person that has universally good taste. Also, we're not in your head, no matter how much better of a coder or whatever. We're not in your head and it's all terribly painful to navigate.

[wisty]

I'm just waiting for Bezos to order all work with human agents to use the same API and guardrails as an LLM.

[imhoguy]

Isn't it how these fulfilment centers already work that way with all these work manuals. Read AMAZON.md /s

[topgrain2]

> Individual gains from llm seem much larger than net productivity increases. I think a major source of this discrepency is people creating more work for their coworkers at the speed of slop. Especially the people with no idea.

Lots of companies (nearly all, I’d wager) of any size were leaving bare-minimum a 2x software development speed increase on the table before LLMs, having nothing whatsoever to do with how fast anyone was typing or thinking up code, and everything to do with how they organized and supported development work, and with your basic ordinary corporate dysfunction.

My company, I’d say it was more like 4x or 5x they could have achieved before LLMs, by fixing processes and reducing how often management steps on their own dicks.

All the people I’m seeing with crazy-high LLM productivity at my company? They’ve been given enormous autonomy to basically go do WTF ever they want, and people are jumping to get them anything they need (and most of what they’re doing is prototyping, for that matter). So right off the bat, if they’re competent, they should see a notable multiplier on productivity even if they weren’t using LLMs. Not that those aren’t helping, too, but if you don’t change processes they’re not all that effective, because the problem wasn’t speed of code-writing (and if you can change processes, you already could have sped up development a lot before LLMs…)

[imhoguy]

In my place I see currently a governance panel effort mandating around LLM agent skills usage, it is so much shit show that I expect productivity is going to fall to 0.5x pre-agents. But not pre-LLM as autocompletion was really helpful in the trenches. The tool in wrong governing hands and you get sand into cogs thrown.