← Back to context

Comment by Terr_

3 days ago

That's not the issue. Their complaint is that proponents keep revising what ought to be fixed goalposts... Well, fixed unless you believe unassisted human developers are also getting dramatically better at their jobs every year.

Like the boy who cried wolf, it'll eventually be true with enough time... But we should stop giving them the benefit of the doubt.

_____

Jan 2025: "Ignore last month's models, they aren't good enough to show a marked increase in human productivity, test with this month's models and the benefits are obvious."

Feb 2025: "Ignore last month's models, they aren't good enough to show a marked increase in human productivity, test with this month's models and the benefits are obvious."

Mar 2025: "Ignore last month's models, they aren't good enough to show a marked increase in human productivity, test with this month's models and the benefits are obvious."

Apr 2025: [Ad nauseam, you get the idea]

6 comments

Terr_

Reply
pdabbadabba  3 days ago

Fair enough. For what it's worth, I've always thought that the more reasonable claim is that AI tools make poor-average developers more productive, not necessarily expert developers.

  • bluefirebrand  3 days ago

    Personally I don't want poor-average developers to be more productive, I want them to be more expert

    • pdabbadabba  3 days ago

      Sure. But what would you suppose the ratio is between expert, average, and mediocre coders in the average organization? I think a small minority would be in the first category, and I don’t see a technology on the horizon that will change that except for LLMs, which seem like they could make mediocre coders both more productive and produce higher quality output.

      2 replies →