Someone already operating at the very limit of their abilities doing stuff that is for them high complexity, high cognitive load, detail intense, and tactically non-obvious? Even a machine that just handed you the perfect code can't 20x your real output, even if it gave you the source file at 20x your native sophistication you wouldn't be able to build and deploy it, let alone make changes to it.

But even if it's the last 5-20% after you're already operating at your very limit and trying to hit your limit every single day is massive, it makes a bunch of stuff on the bubble go from "not realistic" to "we did that".

Stage magicians say that the magic is done in the audiences memory after the trick is done. It's the effect of the activity.

AI coding tools makes developers happier and able to spend more brain power on actually difficult things. But overall perhaps the amount of work isn't in orders of magnitudes it just feels like it.

Waze the navigation app routes you in non standard routes so that you are not stuck in traffic, so it feels fast that you are making progress. But the time taken may be longer and the distance travelled may be further!

Being in stuck traffic and not moving even for a little bit makes you feel that time has stopped, it's boring and frustrating. Now developers need never be stuck. Their roads will be clear, but they may take longer routes.

We get little boosts of dopamine using AI tools to do stuff. Perhaps we used these signals as indicators of productivity "Ahh that days work felt good, I did a lot"

Like: Why isn’t this working? Here Claude read this like 90 page PDF and tell me where I went wrong interfacing with this SDK.

Ohh I accidentally passed async_context_background_threading_safe instead of async_context_thread_safe_poll and it’s so now it’s panicking. Wow that would have taken me forever.

I am wondering, what sort of tasks are you seeing these x20 boost?

Like can we determine the productivity of doctors, lawyers, journalists, or pastry chefs?

What job out there is so simple that we can meaningfully measure all the positive and negative effects of the worker as well as account for different conditions between workers.

I could probably get behind the idea that you could measure productivity for professional poker players (given a long enough evaluation period). Hard to think of much else.

When I'm working with platforms/languages/frameworks I am already deeply familiar with I don't think they save me much time at all. When I've tried to use them in this context they seem to save me a bunch of time in some situations, but also cost me a bunch of time in others resulting in basically a wash as far as time saved goes.

And for me a wash isn't worth the long-term cost of losing touch with the code by not being the one to have crafted it.

But when it comes to environments I'm not intimately familiar with they can provide a very easy on-ramp that is a much more pleasant experience than trying to figure things out through often iffy technical documentation or code samples.

When I’m in the “zone” I wouldn’t go near an LLM, but when I’ve fallen out of the “zone” they can be useful tools in getting me back into it, or just finishing that one extra thing before signing off for the day

I think the right answer to “does LLM use help or hinder developer productivity” is “it depends on how you use them”

I think that's where you get 10-20x. When you're working on niche stuff it's either not gonna work or work poorly.

For example right now I need to figure out why an ffmpeg filter doesn't do X thing smoothly, even though the C code is tiny for the filter and it's self contained.. Gemini refuses to add comments to the code. It just apologizes for not being able to add comments to 150 lines of code lol.

However for building an ffmpeg pipeline in python I was dumbfounded how fast I was prototyping stuff and building fairly complex filter chains which if I had to do by hand just by reading the docs it would've taken me a whole lot more time, effort and frustration but was a joy to figure out with Gemini.

So going back to the study, IMO it's flawed because by definition working on new features for open source projects wouldn't be the bread and butter of LLMs however most people aren't working on stuff like this, they're rewriting the same code that 10000 other people have written but with their own tiny little twist or whatever.

Wouldn't it be the opposite? I'd expect the code would be 47% longer because it's worse and heavier in tech debt (e.g. code repeated in multiple places instead of being factored out into a function).

AI isn't very good at being concise, in my experience. To the point of producing worse code. Which is a strange change from humans who might just have a habit of being too concise, but not by the same degree.

There are some very good findings though, like how the devs thought they were sped up but they were actually slowed down.

I ended shoehorned into backend dev in Ruby/Py/Java and don't find it improves my day to day a lot.

Specifically in C, it can bang out complicated but mostly common data-structures without fault where I would surely do one-off errors. I guess since I do C for hobby I tend to solve more interesting and complicated problems like generating a whole array of dynamic C-dispatchers from a UI-library spec in JSON that allows parsing and rendering a UI specified in YAML. Gemini pro even spat out a YAML-dialect parser after a few attempts/fixes.

Maybe it's a function of familiarity and problems you end using the AI for.

For frontend though? The stuff I really don't specialize in (despite some of my first html beginning on FrontPage 1997 back in 1997), it's a lifesaver. Just gotta be careful with prompts since so many front end frameworks are basically backend code at this point.

Things like "apply this known algorithm to that project-specific data structure" work really well and save plenty of time. Things that require a gut feeling for how things are organized in memory don't work unless you are willing to babysit the model.

In both of these cases, I found that just the smart auto-complete is a massive time-saver. In fact, it's more valuable to me than the interactive or agentic features.

Here's a snippet of some code that's in one of my recent buffers:

    // The instruction should be skipped if all of its named
    // outputs have been coalesced away.
    if ! self.should_keep_instr(instr) {
      return;
    }

    // Non-dropped should have a choice.
    let instr_choice =
      choices.maybe_instr_choice(instr_ref)
        .expect("No choice for instruction");
    self.pick_map.set_instr_choice(
      instr_ref,
      instr_choice.clone(),
    );

    // Incref all named def inputs to the PIR choice.
    instr_choice.visit_input_defs(|input_def| {
      self.def_incref(input_def);
    });

    // Decref all named def inputs to the SIR instr.
    instr.visit_inputs(
      |input_def| self.def_decref(input_def, sir_graph)
    );

The other nice benefit is that I don't have to trust the LLM. I can evaluate each snippet right there and typically the machine does a good job of picking out syntactic style and semantics from the rest of the codebase and file and applying it to the completion.

The snippet, if it's not obvious, is from a bit of compiler backend code I'm working on. I would never have even _attempted_ to write a compiler backend in my spare time without this assistance.

For experienced devs, autocomplete is good enough for massive efficiency gains in dev speed.

I still haven't warmed to the agentic interfaces because I inherently don't trust the LLMs to produce correct code reliably, so I always end up reviewing it, and reviewing greenfield code is often more work than just writing it (esp now that autocomplete is so much more useful at making that writing faster).

Recently, my company has been investigating AI tools for coding. I know this sounds very late to the game, but we're a DoD consultancy and one not traditional associated with software development. So, for most of the people in the company, they are very impressed with the AI's output.

I, on the other hand, am a fairly recent addition to the company. I was specifically hired to be a "wildcard" in their usual operations. Which is too say, maybe 10 of us in a company of 3000 know what we're doing regarding software (but that's being generous because I don't really have visibility into half of the company). So, that means 99.7% of the company doesn't have the experience necessary to tell what good software development looks like.

The stuff the people using the AI are putting out is... better than what the MilOps analysts pressed into writing Python-scripts-with-delusions-of-grandeur were doing before, but by no means what I'd call quality software. I have pretty deep experience in both back end and front end. It's a step above "code written by smart people completely inexperienced in writing software that has to be maintained over a lifetime", but many steps below, "software that can successfully be maintained over a lifetime".

I expect it'll balance.

I guess the tricky bit is, nobody knows what the future looks like. "The internet is a fad" in 1999 hasn't aged well, but a lot of people touted 1960s AI, XML and 3d telivisions as things that'd be the tools in only a few years.

We're all just guessing till then.