←back to thread

688 points dheerajvs | 1 comments | | HN request time: 1.752s | source
Show context
simonw ◴[] No.44523442[source]
Here's the full paper, which has a lot of details missing from the summary linked above: https://metr.org/Early_2025_AI_Experienced_OS_Devs_Study.pdf

My personal theory is that getting a significant productivity boost from LLM assistance and AI tools has a much steeper learning curve than most people expect.

This study had 16 participants, with a mix of previous exposure to AI tools - 56% of them had never used Cursor before, and the study was mainly about Cursor.

They then had those 16 participants work on issues (about 15 each), where each issue was randomly assigned a "you can use AI" v.s. "you can't use AI" rule.

So each developer worked on a mix of AI-tasks and no-AI-tasks during the study.

A quarter of the participants saw increased performance, 3/4 saw reduced performance.

One of the top performers for AI was also someone with the most previous Cursor experience. The paper acknowledges that here:

> However, we see positive speedup for the one developer who has more than 50 hours of Cursor experience, so it's plausible that there is a high skill ceiling for using Cursor, such that developers with significant experience see positive speedup.

My intuition here is that this study mainly demonstrated that the learning curve on AI-assisted development is high enough that asking developers to bake it into their existing workflows reduces their performance while they climb that learing curve.

replies(33): >>44523608 #>>44523638 #>>44523720 #>>44523749 #>>44523765 #>>44523923 #>>44524005 #>>44524033 #>>44524181 #>>44524199 #>>44524515 #>>44524530 #>>44524566 #>>44524631 #>>44524931 #>>44525142 #>>44525453 #>>44525579 #>>44525605 #>>44525830 #>>44525887 #>>44526005 #>>44526996 #>>44527368 #>>44527465 #>>44527935 #>>44528181 #>>44528209 #>>44529009 #>>44529698 #>>44530056 #>>44530500 #>>44532151 #
grey-area ◴[] No.44524005[source]
Well, there are two possible interpretations here of 75% of participants (all of whom had some experience using LLMs) being slower using generative AI:

LLMs have a v. steep and long learning curve as you posit (though note the points from the paper authors in the other reply).

Current LLMs just are not as good as they are sold to be as a programming assistant and people consistently predict and self-report in the wrong direction on how useful they are.

replies(6): >>44524525 #>>44524552 #>>44525186 #>>44525216 #>>44525303 #>>44526981 #
Terr_ ◴[] No.44524525[source]
> people consistently predict and self-report in the wrong direction

I recall an adage about work-estimation: As chunks get too big, people unconsciously substitute "how possible does the final outcome feel" with "how long will the work take to do."

People asked "how long did it take" could be substituting something else, such as "how alone did I feel while working on it."

replies(1): >>44524653 #
sandinmyjoints ◴[] No.44524653[source]
That’s an interesting adage. Any ideas of its source?
replies(1): >>44524715 #
Dilettante_ ◴[] No.44524715[source]
It might have been in Kahneman's "Thinking, Fast and Slow"
replies(1): >>44524803 #
1. Terr_ ◴[] No.44524803[source]
I'm not sure, but something involving Kahneman et al. seems very plausible: The relevant term is probably "Attribute Substitution."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribute_substitution