We produce more output certainly but if it's overall lower quality than previous output is that really "improved productivity"?
There has to be a tipping point somewhere, where faster output of low quality work is actually decreasing productivity due to the efforts now required to keep the tower of garbage from toppling
I am a programmer and my opinion is that all of the AI tooling my company is making me use gets in the way about as often as it helps. It's probably overall a net negative, because any code it produces for me takes longer for me to review and ensure correctness as it would to just write it
> It's not up for debate. Ask any programmer if LLMs improve productivity and the answer is 100% yes.
Programmer here. The answer is 100% no. The programmers who think they're saving time are racking up debts they'll pay later.
The debts will come due when they find they've learned nothing about a problem space and failed to become experts in it despite having "written" and despite owning the feature dealing with it.
Or they'll come due as their failure to hone their skills in technical problem solving catches up to them.
Or they'll come due when they have to fix a bug that the LLM produced and either they'll have no idea how or they'll manage to fix it but then they'll have to explain, to a manager or customer, that they committed code to the codebase that they didn't understand.
I think this is really still up for debate
We produce more output certainly but if it's overall lower quality than previous output is that really "improved productivity"?
There has to be a tipping point somewhere, where faster output of low quality work is actually decreasing productivity due to the efforts now required to keep the tower of garbage from toppling