▲ | rapind 3 days ago | |||||||
I suspect there's a lot of nuance you can't really capture in a study like this. How you use AI will depend on the model, the tools (claude-code vs cursor vs w/e), your familiarity and process (planning phases, vibe coding, etc.), and the team size (solo dev versus large team), your seniority and attention to detail, and hard to measure effects like an increased willingness to tackle harder problems you may have procrastinated on otherwise. I suspect we're heading to a plateau. I think there's a ton of polish that can be done with existing models to improve the coding experience and interface. I think that we're being massively subsidized by investors racing to own this market, but by the time they can't afford to subsidize it anymore, it'll be such a commodity that the prices won't go up and might even go down regardless of their individual losses. As someone who knows they are benefitting from AI (study shmuddy), I'm perfectly fine with things slowing down since it's already quite good and stands to be much better with a focus on polish and incremental improvements. I wouldn't invest in these AI companies though! | ||||||||
▲ | didibus 3 days ago | parent [-] | |||||||
> As someone who knows they are benefitting from AI (study shmuddy) XD Look, I get it, I still use it, but you have to admit, people also think that various bogus home remedy totally helps them get over a cold faster. There's absolutely a possibility it in no way makes us faster. Now, you did say "benefit", that's more broad, and you implied things like polish, I've seen others mention it just makes the work easier, that could be a win in itself (for the workers). Maybe it's about accessibility. Etc. I do think though, right now, we're all in the "home remedy" territory, until we actually measure these things. | ||||||||
|