I've used it, and I thought it was absolute trash. Goes crazy doing shit I don't want. I spend more time deleting crap I didn't want and reviewing and changing its code than I do just writing it myself.

I know what you're going to say: I need to learn to use this groundbreaking technology that is so easy to use that my product manager will soon be doing my job but also is too hard for me a senior engineer, to find value in.

Kindly: no, I trust my judgement, and the data backs me up.

Have you taken measurements of how many features and bugs you've shipped over the last twelve months or are you just like the engineers in the METR study who self reported an improvement but when measured, had been impaired? What evidence do you have that your attitude is not simply informed by the sunk cost of your subscription?

Please share your data below

Wholeheartedly agree.

Nothing my friends that heavily use AI for is groundbreaking at all. It's stuff they already entirely know how to do, describe in full detail what they want implemented, then double-check all of the results. I'm not convinced at all that they're doing architectural and long-term design thinking in this process. They're just "making the thing". I don't think they really care enough to do any of that hard thinking either. Not that they should be, considering the state of the industry and the lack of loyalty companies have to developers.

[flagged]