“ Productivity (measured by the number of lines of code produced) increased”

The LLM’s better have written more code, they’re a text generation machine!

In what world does this study prove that the LLM actually accomplished anything useful?

Our_Benefactors an hour ago | parent [-]

As expected, the goalposts are being moved.

LOC does have a correlation with productivity, as much as devs hate to acknowledge it. I don’t care that you can provide counterexamples to this, or even if the AI on average takes more LOC to accomplish the same task - it still results in more productivity overall because it arrives at the result faster.

	▲	capyba 16 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Nothing about this is moving goalposts - you and/or the person(s) conducting this study are the ones being misleading! If you want to measure time to complete a complex task, then measure that. LOC is an intermediate measure. How much more productive is "55% more lines of code"? I can write a bunch of garbage code really fast with a lot of bugs that doesn't work, or I can write a better program that works properly, slower. Under your framework, the former must be classified as 'better' - but why? I read the study you reference and there is literally nothing in the study that talks about whether or not tasks were accomplished successfully. It says: * Junior devs benefited more than senior devs, then presents a disingenuous argument as to why that's the senior devs' fault (more experienced employees are worse than less experienced employees, who knew?!) * 11% of the 55% increase in LOC was attributed directly to LLM output * Makes absolutely no attempt to measure whether or not the extra code was beneficial