Where's the shovelware? Why AI coding claims don't add up (mikelovesrobots.substack.com)

Article summary

The article questions the claims of AI increasing developer productivity by 10x, citing the lack of evidence in the form of increased output, such as 'shovelware' games and software. Commenters discuss the potential reasons for this discrepancy, including the limitations of AI in certain tasks and the possibility that AI is being used to automate routine work rather than increase overall productivity. The article's argument is based on the idea that if AI were truly making developers more productive, we would see a surge in output, which has not been observed. The discussion revolves around the potential flaws in this argument and the actual impact of AI on developer productivity.

Main themes

• AI productivity claims
• Software development
• Shovelware
• Automation
• Developer productivity
• AI limitations

What commenters say

• The lack of increased output in the form of 'shovelware' suggests that AI may not be making developers as productive as claimed.
• AI can increase productivity for specific tasks, but not across the board, and its benefits may be limited to certain areas of software development.
• The use of AI to automate routine work may not necessarily lead to an increase in overall productivity, but rather a shift in the type of work being done.
• The article's methodology is flawed, as it assumes that all code gets shipped as a product, and ignores the potential for AI-generated code to be used in other ways.
• The actual impact of AI on developer productivity is still unclear, and more research is needed to fully understand its effects.
• Some commenters believe that AI is being used as an excuse for layoffs, rather than a genuine reason for increased productivity.
• Others argue that the benefits of AI are real, but limited to specific areas, such as generating boilerplate code or automating routine tasks.
• The quality of AI-generated code is also a topic of debate, with some commenters arguing that it is often incorrect or incomplete.