It does depend on how you define productivity. But the way it's commonly used is "I'm going faster, personally, with these tools."

The thing people I think have a hard time seeing is that "I go faster" does not mean "more features get finished".

It's a scale issue, and one scale is better than the other. People only pay for finished features, they do not pay for how much code you emit.

▲

fl4regun 3 hours ago | parent [-]

economists define productivity as gdp per hour worked. Like a lot of other economic measurements, its mostly a bogus number people use as an argument on why their politics are better than someone elses politics. You can have an efficient business located in a poor country making the same product and same quality as that same business in a rich country, the rich country will be more "productive" because local cost of goods is higher there (i.e. a restaurant in NYC is more "productive" than a restaurant in bangladesh).

▲

oudlys 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Sure. But that's not, in my view, how most people use the word productivity when describing LLM use.

In my field - operations - productivity is usually described as some rate of production for a specific asset. 100 widgets / machine / hour - for example.

"My productivity is 3 PRs / day with the LLM as opposed to 1 PR per every three days". That's how I think people are thinking about it.

My point is that's not the same thing as value. I.e. what people will pay for.

	▲	fl4regun 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		You're correct, I just wanted to add that there is another definition that you may see used online, and it is very specific, and it's important to be aware it's NOT exactly the same thing most normal people mean when they say "productivity".