The AI industry's claims about AI coding assistants boosting productivity significantly appear to be massively overblown, per a new report.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/49954591

“No Duh,” say senior developers everywhere.

The article explains that vibe code often is close, but not quite, functional, requiring developers to go in and find where the problems are - resulting in a net slowdown of development rather than productivity gains.

Then there’s the issue of finding an agreed-upon way of tracking productivity gains, a glaring omission given the billions of dollars being invested in AI.

To Bain & Company, companies will need to fully commit themselves to realize the gains they’ve been promised.

“Fully commit” to see the light? That… sounds more like a kind of religion, not like critical or even rational thinking.

  • thingsiplay@beehaw.org
    191·
    13 hours ago

    Billions of dollars are spent, unimaginable amount of power is used, ton of programmers are fired, million of millions code is copied without license and credit, nasty bugs and security issues are added due to trusting the ai system or being lazy. Was it worth it? Many programmers get disposable as they have to use ai. That means “all” programmers are the same and differ only in what model they use, at least that’s the future if everyone is using ai from now on.

    Ai = productivity increases, quality decreases… oh wait, Ai = productivity seems to increase, quality does decrease

    • dinckelman@programming.devEnglish
      9·
      9 hours ago

      This is just a very fucked reminder of that easy success never comes without a cost. Unfortunately, normal people paid that debt, while business majors continue feeding the pump and dump machine

        • blarghly@lemmy.worldEnglish
          2·
          5 hours ago

          That’s literally not true at all. Developed nations enjoy unprecedented levels of wealth these days, while incomes have consistently been rising in developing nations for decades. If it were true, then for every person we have now on Lemmy shit posting, we would need someone else living on less substance than our paleolithic anscestors did. We can certainly argue about the overall distribution of the wealth that has been generated - but it is blatently obvious that higher standards of living do not imply that someone, somewhere else must be living in poverty.