Programming

No. Experienced devs knew it would make tasks take longer, because we have common sense and technical knowledge.

I don't blame randos for buying into the hype; what do they know? But by now we're seeing that they have caught on to the scam.

When writing code, I don't let AI do the heavy lifting. Instead, I use it to push back the fog of war on tech I'm trying to master. At the same time, keep the dialogue to a space where I can verify what it's giving me.

1. Never ask leading questions. Every token you add to the conversation matters, so phrase your query in a way that forces the AI to connect the dots for you
2. Don't ask for deep reasoning and inference. It's not built for this, and it will bullshit/hallucinate if you push it to do so.
3. Ask for live hyperlinks so it's easier to fact-check.
4. Ask for code samples, algorithms, or snippets to do discrete tasks that you can easily follow.
5. Ask for A/B comparisons between one stack you know by heart, and the other you're exploring.
6. It will screw this up, eventually. Report hallucinations back to the conversation.

About 20% of the time, it'll suggest things that are entirely plausible and probably should exist, but don't. Some platforms and APIs really do have barn-door-sized holes in them and it's staggering how rapidly AI reports a false positive in these spaces. It's almost as if the whole ML training stratagem assumes a kind of uniformity across the training set, on all axes, that leads to this flavor of hallucination. In any event, it's been helpful to know this is where it's most likely to trip up.

Edit: an example of one such API hole is when I asked ChatGPT for information about doing specific things in Datastar. This is kind of a curveball since there's not a huge amount online about it. It first hallucinated an attribute namespace prefix of data-star- which is incorrect (it uses data- instead). It also dreamed up a JavaScript-callable API parked on a non-existent Datastar. object. Both of those concepts conform strongly to the broader world of browser-extending APIs, would be incredibly useful, and are things you might expect to be there in the first place.

I assumed nothing, and evaluated it like I would any other tool. It's ok for throwaway scripts but if the script does anything non-trivial that could affect anything external the time spent making sure nothing goes awfully wrong is at least as much as the time saved generating the script, at least in my domain.

Someone on Mastodon was saying that whether you consider AI coding an advantage completely depends on whether you think of prompting the AI and verifying its output as “work.” If that’s work to you, the AI offers no benefit. If it’s not, then you may think you’ve freed up a bunch of time and energy.

The problem for me, then, is that I enjoy writing code. I do not enjoy telling other people what to do or reviewing their code. So AI is a valueless proposition to me because I like my job and am good at it.

People assumed X, but in one experiment the result was Y.

And in his many experiments the result was in fact X, if it was just 1 on which it was Y?

I don't actually disagree with the article, I'm just pointing out the title is meaningless.

This study is over 6 months old, why is Fortune.com only writing about it now?

I got an email couple of weeks ago with invitation to some paid study about AI. They were looking for programmers that would solve some tasks with and with AI help. I didn't have time or felt like participating but if I did I would 100% work slower on task with AI just to help derail the pro-AI narrative. It's not in my interest to help promote it. Just saying...

Writing code with an AI as an experienced software developer is like writing code by instructing a junior developer.

The real slowdown comes after when you realize you don't understand your own codebase because you relied too much on AI. To understand it well enough requires discipline, which in the current IT world is lacking anyway. Either you can rely entirely on AI or you need to monitor its every action, in which case you may be better off writing yourself. But this hybrid approach I don't think will pan out particularly well.

And this gets worse over time because you still have to maintain it.

And as the cherry on top - https://www.techradar.com/pro/nearly-half-of-all-code-generated-by-ai-found-to-contain-security-flaws-even-big-llms-affected

Not surprised.

In my last job, my boss used more and more AI. As a senior dev, I was very used to his coding patterns. I knew the code that he wrote and could generally follow what he made. The more he used AI? The less understandable, confusing and buggy the code became.

Eventually, the CEO of the company abused the "gains" of the AI "productivity" to push for more features with tighter deadlines. This meant the technical debt kept growing, and I got assigned to fixing the messes the AI was shitting all over the code base with.

In the end? We had several critical security vulnerabilities and a code base that even I couldn't understand. It was dogshit. AI will only ever be used to "increase productivity" and profit while ignoring the chilling effects: lower quality code, buggy software and dogshit working conditions.

Enduring 3 months of this severely burnt me out, I had to quit. The rabid profit incentive needs to go to fucking hell. God I despise of tech bros.

Here's the full paper for the study this article is about: Measuring the Impact of Early-2025 AI on Experienced Open-Source Developer Productivity (PDF).