> That there is no evidence (not personal anecdotes but the numbers) of productivity increase?

The blog tries to cite a 2025 METR study as evidence of no productivity increase, but they ignored the newer 2026 study by the same group that did show a productivity increase with the newer tools.

I also think it's funny that there have become these hard demands for studies and proof of increased productivity. We never saw the same standard of evidence applied to previous advancements like different programming languages or using git for version control. We don't argue with people when they say they're personally more productive in emacs than in VS Code or vice versa. It's only when the topic of AI comes up that the bar for evidence gets raised to the sky

▲

eudamoniac 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Because those tools were adopted organically by users because they were obviously good. AI is pushed from leaders onto users despite the users not thinking they are good. If my boss decides the whole company is switching to emacs I think he should have some evidence to support that decision, yes.

▲

Aurornis 4 hours ago | parent [-]

> AI is pushed from leaders onto users despite the users not thinking they are good.

Developers are pushing companies to give them access to AI tools and increase their token budgets.

	▲	eudamoniac 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		That phenomenon is more rare than what I mentioned. Every* tech company is forcing AI. A few AI enthusiasts want more of it. Those are two unrelated situations. I can find developers pushing companies to use F#; that does not mean anything, and is very different from my boss switching the whole stack to F# suddenly. The former is someone wanting to use something he likes, the latter is forcing everyone to use something they may not like and that probably has big effects on the company, so should require evidence that the change is beneficial.