> When surveyed, 30% to 50% of developers told us that they were choosing not to submit some tasks because they did not want to do them without AI. This implies we are systematically missing tasks which have high expected uplift from AI.

In fact, one of the developers in the original study later revealed on Twitter that he had already done exactly that during the study, i.e. filtered out tasks he prefered not to do without AI: https://xcancel.com/ruben_bloom/status/1943536052037390531

While this was only one developer (that we know of), given the N was 16 and he seems to have been one of the more AI-experienced devs, this could have had a non-trivial effect on the results.

The original study gets a lot of air-time from AI naysayers, let's see how much this follow-up gets ;-)

> 3. Regarding me specifically, I work on the LessWrong codebase which is technically open-source. I feel like calling myself an "open-source developer" has the wrong connotations, and makes it more sound like I contribute to a highly-used Python library or something as an upper-tier developer which I'm not

That’s very interesting! This kinda matches what I see at work:

- low performers love it. it really does make them output more (which includes bugs, etc. it’s causing some contention that’s yet to be resolved)

- some high performers love it. these were guys who are more into greenfield stuff and ok with 90% good. very smart, but just not interested in anything outside of going fast

- everyone else seems to be finding use out of it, but reviews are painful