← Back to context

Comment by troupo

2 months ago

Thank you!

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbDDYKRFjhk (from Stanford, not an RCT, but the largest scale with actual commits from 100K developers across 600+ companies, and tries to account for reworking AI output. Same guys behind the "ghost engineers" story.)

I like this one a lot, though I just skimmed through it. At 11:58 they talk about what many find correlates with their personal experience. It talks about easy vs complex in greenfield vs brownfield.

> They all find productivity boosts in the 15 - 30% range -- with a ton of nuance, of course.

Or 5-30% with "Ai is likely to reduce productivity in high complexity tasks" ;) But yeah, a ton nuance is needed

Yeah that's why I like that one too, they address a number of points that come up in AI-related discussions. E.g. they even find negative productivity (-5%) in legacy / non-popular languages, which aligns with what a lot of folks here report.

However even these levels are surprising to me. One of my common refrains is that harnessing AI effectively has a deceptively steep learning curve, and often individuals need to figure out for themselves what works best for them and their current project. Took me many months, personally.

Yet many of these studies show immediate boosts in productivity, hinting that even novice AI users are seeing significant improvements. Many of the engineers involved didn't even get additional training, so it's likely a lot of them simply used the autocompletion features and never even touched the powerful chat-based features. Furthermore, current workflows, codebases and tools are not suited for this new modality.

As things are figured out and adopted, I expect we'll see even more gains.