381
AI coders think they’re 20% faster — but they’re actually 19% slower
(pivot-to-ai.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Jul 2025
381 points (100.0% liked)
TechTakes
2232 readers
185 users here now
Big brain tech dude got yet another clueless take over at HackerNews etc? Here's the place to vent. Orange site, VC foolishness, all welcome.
This is not debate club. Unless it’s amusing debate.
For actually-good tech, you want our NotAwfulTech community
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Entry-level devs ain't replacing anyone. One senior dev is going to be doing the work of a whole team
Same as how an entry level architect can build a building 60% as tall, and that'll last 60% as long, right?
Edit: And an entry level aerospace engineer with AI assistance will build a plane that's 60% as good at not crashing.
I'm not looking forward to the world I believe is coming...
Get 2 and the plane will be 120% as good!
In fact if children with AI are a mere 1% as good, a school with 150 children can build 150% as good!
I am sure this is how project management works, and if it is not maybe Elon can get Grok to claim that it is. (When not busy praising Hitler.)
this brooks no argument and it’s clear we should immediately throw all available resources at ai so as to get infinite improvement!!~
(I even heard some UN policy wonk spout the AGI line recently 🙄)
This simply isn't how software development skill levels work. You can't give a tool to a new dev and have them do things experienced devs can do that new devs can't. You can maybe get faster low tier output (though low tier output demands more review work from experienced devs so the utility of that is questionable). I'm sorry but you clearly don't understand the topic you're making these bold claims about.
I think more low tier output would be a disaster.
Even pre AI I had to deal with a project where they shoved testing and compliance at juniors for a long time. What a fucking mess it was. I had to go through every commit mentioning Coverity because they had a junior fixing coverity flagged "issues". I spent at least 2 days debugging a memory corruption crash caused by such "fix", and then I had to spend who knows how long reviewing every such "fix".
And don't get me started on tests. 200+ tests, of them none caught several regressions in handling of parameters that are shown early in the frigging how-to. Not some obscure corner case, the stuff you immediately run into if you just follow the documentation.
With AI all the numbers would be much larger - more commits "fixing coverity issues" (and worse yet fixing "issues" that LLM sees in code), more so called "tests" that don't actually flag any real regressions, etc.
is there like a character sheet somewhere so i can know where i fall on this developer spectrum
It's going to be your INT bonus modifier, but you can get a feat that also adds the WIS modifier
For prolonged coding sessions you do need CON saving throws, but you can get advantage from drinking coffee (once per short rest)
I must have picked up a feat somewhere because I hit that shit way more than once per short rest
Yeah, the glorious future where every half-as-good-as-expert developer is now only 25% as good as an expert (a level of performance also known as being "completely shit at it"), but he's writing 10x the amount of unusable shitcode.
Okay but that is different from the argument that entry developers only need to be half as good to deliver a working product