[J_McQuade]

> Many people are seeing huge gains in coding productivity with AI.

I don't want to speak for the person you replied to, but I think that their main point is... are they?

I see lots of articles about huge increases in productivity, but I think it's fair to argue that we've yet to see the huge increases in useful products that would surely (we hope) result from that if it were true.

[megaloblasto]

I'm speaking just to coding productivity. I think AI does very little for business development or creativity type issues.

People should realize that denying that AI can boost productivity in coding makes it look like they don't know how to use it, or believe in some conspiracy that no one is actually benefitting and it's all market hype from tech bros.

[mattmanser]

If they were, where are their products and open source projects? Let's circle back.

One thing I've noticed about the super-AI enthusiasts on HN is that not a single one ever have a single comment linking to a repo of work they've made with it.

I check. I actually always do because I'm really keen to learn how to use these magical super-AI workflows. I've watched streams, replicated clause MD files, tried all the context tricks.

I'm not even saying AI doesn't help, it's great for getting me over the blank page writer's block. It's just not great at much else.

So I've just checked your comments and not only do you not have any examples of your super-duper AI skills, but it looks like you've been in the industry less than a year, graduating from a PhD last year?

You also admit it took you a week trying to debug a problem before an AI fixed it for you. Because you'd missed some parentheses in an algo.

I'm not trying to shame you, but that does signal your inexperience. If you'd have made the code well and easy to test, you should have spotted your bad algo quickly.

So is it that we're all bad at using AI? Or is it that AI benefits inexperienced programmers more?

[SpicyLemonZest]

I believe in some conspiracy that no one is actually benefitting. I don't want to blame marketing, it's genuinely very cool that I can give Cursor a description of what I'm trying to do and get a result that's like 80% correct. But I've repeatedly found that going from 80% to 100% takes just as much time and effort as it would have to do it myself from the start.

I've shadowed people who believe AI is helping them, and it seems to me that some of them don't notice how much effort they're spending while others don't bother to correct the 80% version once tests are passing.

[bgwalter]

This is Gavin Belson level stuff.

[jayd16]

I admit that I don't know how to use it and it does seem like marketing hype and tech bros with some mild value and I'm waiting to be proven wrong and crushed, John Henry the Steel Driving Man style, and it's just not happening.