Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

>> The apparent speed up is mostly a deception.

When I am able ask a very simple question of an LLM which then prevents me having to context-switch to answer the same simple question myself; this is a big time saver for me but hard-to-quantify.

Anything that reduces my cognitive load when the pressure is on is a blessing on some level.



Cognitive load is something people always leave out. I can fuckin code drunk with these things. Or just increase stamina to push farther than I would writing every single line.


This might be the measurable "some" non deceptive time saving, whereas most of it is still deceptive in terms of time saved


You could make the same argument for any non-AI driven productivity tool/technique. If we can't trust the user to determine what is and is not time-saving then time-saving isn't a useful thing to discuss outside of an academic setting.

My issue with most AI discussions is they seem to completely change the dimensions we use to evaluate basic things. I believe if we replaced "AI" with "new useful tool" then people would be much more eager to adopt it.

What clicked for me is when I started treating it more like a tool and less like some sort of nebulous pandora's box.

Now to me it's no different than auto completing code, fuzzy finding files, regular expressions, garbage collection, unit testing, UI frameworks, design patterns, etc. It's just a tool. It has weaknesses and it has strengths. Use it for the strengths and account for the weaknesses.

Like any tool it can be destructive in the hands of an inexperienced person or a person who's asking it to do too much. But in the hands of someone who knows what they're doing and knows what they want out of it - it's so freakin' awesome.

Sorry for the digression. All that to say that if someone believes it's a productivity boost for them then I don't think they're being misled.


Except actual studies objectively show efficiency gains, more with junior devs, which make sense. So no, it's not a "deception" but it is often overstated in popular media.


Studies have limitations, in particular they test artificial and narrowly-scoped problems that are quite different from real world work.


And anecdotes are useless. If you want to show me improved studies justifying your claim great, but no I don't value random anecdotes. There are countless conflicting anecdotes (including my own).


I find the opposite, the more senior the more value they offer as you know how to ask the right questions, how to vary the questions and try different tact’s and also observe errors or mistakes




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: