I dunno: this is pure anecdata but software engineers I know well - including me - all say they’re delivering multiple times faster, so it’s definitely good for something.

I don’t know about other tasks, but it’s pretty rad for coding, testing, DevOps, and config.

▲

jeremyjh 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This research is specifically NOT about tech companies. It is about the rest of the fortune 500.

If you are in software or IT at a non-tech company that is in the fortune 500, the impact of significantly better productivity may not be measurable in aggregate in the company's P&L.

In smaller companies I expect it could be more measurable because some of them really are using AI much more effectively across many functions. But we're finding it very hard to measure meaningful outcomes.

▲

abathologist 3 hours ago | parent [-]

But actually 40% of the S&P 500 are tech companies, and they are saying only the mag 7 are showing clear revenue increase. Would would suggest that even in most tech we are not seeming measurable revenue growth, right?

One plausible explanations that has occurred to me is this: While programmers etc. can produce way more code with LLMs, the declines in quality and coherence of the work, and a widening gap with a coherent strategy and aim for value means the increased activity is mostly not valuable. I suspect this may just be an intensification of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Productivity_paradox#Little_pr...

	▲	jeremyjh 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The mag 7 are getting direct or nearly direct revenue from AI inference. New money is pouring into that - it is not zero sum. Everyone else is getting internal productivity lifts that are matched by competition, and when they are deploying inference features they are usually ones their customers didn’t ask for and don’t value, OR that they expect everyone to have and are not a differentiator. I think you are also correct that a lot of value is being wasted with projects that are developed impressively fast but that provide little value. It could be those are simply surplus personnel trying to add value or make people think they do.

▲

FabHK 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

A friend of mine works in fashion. Very briefly for background: there are runway models (who walk on live shows), and catalogue models (who work in studios presenting clothes against a neutral background in standard poses, more or less as living mannequins). The latter are being increasingly replaced by AI.

▲

LastTrain 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If only I wasn’t using all that productivity on fixing vulnerabilities

▲

moron4hire 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

People are not reliable narrators on their own productivity. They often mistake activity for productivity.

	▲	senordevnyc an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I’ll take that over “hmm, the average revenue per employee of these 493 massive companies is flat, so AI doesn’t add value”

▲

mguerville 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Same story here in my first hand experience + colleagues experience in corporate strategy, FP&A, Marketing and corporate development.

▲

fzeroracer 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

One weird trick that devs learn to deliver faster: simply just drop all guard rails and push directly to prod. We need to make sure our velocity report looks good after all.

▲

noodletheworld an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> all say they’re delivering multiple times faster

Are you measuring the right metric?

This feels like an on going lack-of-understanding in the industry.

In manufacturing, economies of scale and automation work because you're physically making more objects and objects inherently have value.

For software, making more software doesn't mean you can sell more units of software. The unit price of selling existing software is already 0. Economies of scale do not exist.

The OP says: net business output is not up as a result of AI.

So:

…if your team is doing more work and being more productive…

That just means the productivity of your team (or software teams in general) maybe doesn't have a meaningful business impact.

You should be worried if so. That means productivity = work force reduction (reduce fixed costs for the business).

	▲	senordevnyc an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Hold on, you’re claiming that software companies don’t have economies of scale? Is that right? It sounds like you’re also saying that creating more software can’t result in more revenue? We work in very different software industries.

▲

kxrm 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

AI EM here, same. The level of productivity has increased dramatically in the last 2 months. Reliable code also has increased due to AI.

This train isn't stopping.

What trips up a lot of SEs where I work is their techniques. Everyone who follows our process delivers faster and with higher reliability so far.

▲

0c3ca83 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

But is it churn or value? Most of the software I use has gotten visibility worse as you deliver multiple times faster.

I would pay extra for a company that just slowed down and moved deliberately.

▲

ForHackernews 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'm not sure I'm any faster, but I think the end result is better and I've attempted some big refactors and new architectures that I would never have tried without AI.

N=1 but I'm not sure it's made my bosses any richer. What we're shipping has better tests and documentation than it ever would have before AI.

▲

techpression 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Most, not all, are just delivering more bad stuff faster. I personally also think I deliver more good stuff with AI, but the products I use are just getting worse daily it feels like. Just the other day I noticed Slack had installed some disgusting menu bar icon for their AI bot, without asking, just to take a fresh example of this.