[iLoveOncall]

Even this is overstating it IMO.

I already convert from multipliers to percentage of increase, so when someone claims 10x they very likely mean +100% productivity, and here 2x means +20% productivity, which seems about right. Nobody that was normally productive before LLMs has suddenly 10x'ed their output now.

The problem is that 20% productivity when it comes to generating code, really doesn't translate in 20% productivity increase overall, when you take into account the fact that the code quality is worse, the fact that writing code is actually not the majority of your time spent, and that people get burnt out from the usage.

[jdlshore]

2x is 100% increase.

[iLoveOncall]

I know, and I'm saying that 2x claims should be interpreted as an actual 20% increase, and 10x claims as an actual 100% increase. People are just bad at estimating their own productivity.

[didibus]

Ya, I feel 10% to 50% increase seems more realistic, when I see 100% to 900% increase claims it seems a bit extrapolated, at least I don't feel I'm seeing it at my work. And then it depends if we imply a given feature/fix/enhancement takes half the time as before, or we imply that we can get twice as many features/fix/enhancements done in the same amount of time as before. Those are not equivalent. I think the latter might be more accurate as to how it helps.

[kaffekaka]

Yes, people (myself included) have a strong tendency to use hyperbolic factors, "ten times", "100x" because true estimates are very hard to do.