Comment by lunar_mycroft
1 day ago
> if at all realistic numbers are mentioned, I see people claiming 20 - 50%
IME most people claim small integer multiples, 2-5x.
> all the largest studies I've looked at mention this clearly and explain how they try to address it.
Yes, but I think pre-AI virtually everyone reading this would have been very skeptical about their ability to do so.
> My current hypothesis, based on the DORA and DX 2025 reports, is that quality is largely a function of your quality control processes (tests, CI/CD etc.)
This is pretty obviously incorrect, IMO. To see why, let's pretend it's 2021 and LLMs haven't come out yet. Someone is suggesting no longer using experienced (and expensive) first world developers to write code. Instead, they suggest hiring several barely trained boot camp devs (from low cost of living parts of the world so they're dirt cheap) for every current dev and having the latter just do review. They claim that this won't impact quality because of the aforementioned review and their QA process. Do you think that's a realistic assessment? If and on the off chance you think it is, why didn't this happen on a larger scale pre-LLM?
The resolution here is that while quality control is clearly important, it's imperfect, ergo the quality of the code before passing through that process still matters. Pass worse code in, and you'll get worse code out. As such, any team using the method described above might produce more code, but it would be worse code.
> the largest study in the link above explicitly discuss it and find that proxies for quality (like approval rates) indicate more improvement than a decline
Right, but my point is that that's a sanity check failure. The fact that shoving worse at your quality control system will lower the quality of the code coming out the other side is IMO very well established, as is the fact that LLM generated code is still worse than human generated (where the human knows how to write the code in question, which they should if they're going to be responsible for it). It follows that more LLM code generation will result in worse code, and if a study finds the opposite it's very likely that the it made some mistake.
As an analogy, when a physics experiment appeared to find that neutrino travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum, the correct conclusion was that there had almost certainly been a problem with the experiment, not that neutrinos actually travel faster than the speed of light. That was indeed the explanation. (Note that I'm not claiming that "quality control processes cannot completely eliminate the effect of input code quality" and "LLM generated code is worse than human generated code" are as well established as relativity.)
> Yes, but I think pre-AI virtually everyone reading this would have been very skeptical about their ability to do so.
That's not quite true: while everybody acknowledged it was folly to measure absolute individual productivity, there were aggregate metrics many in the industry were aligning on like DORA or the SPACE framework, not to mention studies like > ... as is the fact that LLM generated code is still worse than human generated...
I still don't think that can be assumed as a fact. The few studies I've seen find comparable outcomes, with LLMs actually having a slight edge in some cases, e.g.
- https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.16857
-lunar_mycroft
6 hours ago
> My hypothesis (based on observations when personally involved) is that this is exactly what allowed offshoring to boom.
Offshoring did happen, but if you were correct that only the quality control process impacted final quality, the software industry would have looked something like e.g. garment industry, with basically zero people being paid to actually write software in the first world, and hires from the developing world not requiring much skill. What we actually see is that some offshoring occurred, but it was limited and when it did occur companies tried to hire highly trained professionals in the country they outsourced to, not the cheapest bootcamp dev they could find. That's because the quality of the code at generation does matter, so it becomes a tradeoff between cost and quality.
> I still don't think that can be assumed as a fact. The few studies I've seen find comparable outcomes, with LLMs actually having a slight edge in some cases, e.g.
Anthropic doesn't actually believe in their LLMs as strongly as you do. You know how I can tell? Because they just spent millions acquihiring the Bun team instead of asking Claude to write them a JS runtime (not to mention the many software engineering roles they're advertising on their website). They know that their SOTA LLMs still generate worse code than humans, that they can't completely make up for it in the quality control phase, and that they at the very least can't be confident of that changing in the immediate future.