> Our analysis reveals that LLM-assistants offer both considerable benefits and critical risks. Commonly reported gains include minimized code search, accelerated development, and the automation of trivial and repetitive tasks. However, studies also highlight concerns around cognitive offloading, reduced team collaboration, and inconsistent effects on code quality.
Why are you ignoring the existence of these 37 other studies and pretending the one study you keep sharing is the only in existence and thus authoritatively conclusive?
Furthermore from the study you keep sharing, they state:
> We do not provide evidence that:
AI systems do not currently speed up many or most software developers. Clarification: We do not claim that our developers or repositories represent a majority or plurality of software development work
Why do YOU claim that this study provides evidence, conclusively and as settled science, that AI systems do not speed up many or most developers? You are unscientifically misrepresenting the study you are so eager to share. You are a complete “hype man” for this study beyond what it evidences because of your eagerness for a way to shut down discourse and dismiss any progress since the study’s focus on Sonnet 3.5. The study you share even says that there has been a lot of progress in the last five years and future progress as well as different techniques in using the tools may produce productive results and that the study doesn’t evidence otherwise! You are unserious.
There is this paper that surveys results of 37 studies and reaches a different conclusion: https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.03156
> Our analysis reveals that LLM-assistants offer both considerable benefits and critical risks. Commonly reported gains include minimized code search, accelerated development, and the automation of trivial and repetitive tasks. However, studies also highlight concerns around cognitive offloading, reduced team collaboration, and inconsistent effects on code quality.
Why are you ignoring the existence of these 37 other studies and pretending the one study you keep sharing is the only in existence and thus authoritatively conclusive?
Furthermore from the study you keep sharing, they state:
> We do not provide evidence that: AI systems do not currently speed up many or most software developers. Clarification: We do not claim that our developers or repositories represent a majority or plurality of software development work
Why do YOU claim that this study provides evidence, conclusively and as settled science, that AI systems do not speed up many or most developers? You are unscientifically misrepresenting the study you are so eager to share. You are a complete “hype man” for this study beyond what it evidences because of your eagerness for a way to shut down discourse and dismiss any progress since the study’s focus on Sonnet 3.5. The study you share even says that there has been a lot of progress in the last five years and future progress as well as different techniques in using the tools may produce productive results and that the study doesn’t evidence otherwise! You are unserious.