←back to thread

399 points nomdep | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.213s | source
Show context
lexandstuff ◴[] No.44295309[source]
Great article. The other thing that you miss out on when you don't write the code yourself is that sense of your subconscious working for you. Writing code has a side benefit of developing a really strong mental model of a problem, that kinda gets embedded in your neurons and pays dividends down the track, when doing stuff like troubleshooting or deciding on how to integrate a new feature. You even find yourself solving problems in your sleep.

I haven't observed any software developers operating at even a slight multiplier from the pre-LLM days at the organisations I've worked at. I think people are getting addicted to not having to expend brain energy to solve problems, and they're mistaking that for productivity.

replies(3): >>44295716 #>>44300265 #>>44339626 #
nerevarthelame ◴[] No.44295716[source]
> I think people are getting addicted to not having to expend brain energy to solve problems, and they're mistaking that for productivity.

I think that's a really elegant way to put it. Google Research tried to measure LLM impacts on productivity in 2024 [1]. They gave their subjects an exam and assigned them different resources (a book versus an LLM). They found that the LLM users actually took more time to finish than those who used a book, and that only novices on the subject material actually improved their scores when using an LLM.

But the participants also perceived that they were more accurate and efficient using the LLM, when that was not the case. The researchers suggested that it was due to "reduced cognitive load" - asking an LLM something is easy and mostly passive. Searching through a book is active and can feel more tiresome. Like you said: people are getting addicted to not having to expend brain energy to solve problems, and mistaking that for productivity.

[1] https://storage.googleapis.com/gweb-research2023-media/pubto...

replies(1): >>44295806 #
wiseowise ◴[] No.44295806[source]
You’re twisting results. Just because they took more time doesn’t mean their productivity went down. On the contrary, if you can perform expert task with much less mental resources (which 99% of orgs should prioritize for) then it is an absolute win. Work is extremely mentally draining and soul crushing experience for majority of people, if AI can lower that while maintaining roughly same result with subjects allocating only, say, 25% of their mental energy – that’s an amazing win.
replies(2): >>44295833 #>>44301433 #
nerevarthelame ◴[] No.44301433[source]
They took more time and, on average, had fewer correct answers. Decreased "productivity" was the language the researchers used.
replies(1): >>44302880 #
1. wiseowise ◴[] No.44302880[source]
There's more to productivity than fewer correct answers.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44297190

Already replied better.