Coders spent more time prompting and reviewing AI generations than they saved on coding. On the surface, METR’s results seem to contradict other benchmarks and experiments that demonstrate increases in coding efficiency when AI tools are used. But those often also measure productivity in terms of total lines of code or the number of discrete tasks/code commits/pull requests completed, all of which can be poor proxies for actual coding efficiency. These factors lead the researchers to conclude that current AI coding tools may be particularly ill-suited to “settings with very high quality standards, or with many implicit requirements (e.g., relating to documentation, testing coverage, or linting/formatting) that take humans substantial time to learn.” While those factors may not apply in “many realistic, economically relevant settings” involving simpler code bases, they could limit the impact of AI tools in this study and similar real-world situations.

  • GreenKnight23@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 days ago

    They can’t read your mind. A professional painter is going to make the exact image they want in far less time and with more accuracy than repeatedly prompting a black box to make small changes.

    and this is the exact reason why I hate IDEs that relentlessly “do things” for me.

    I don’t need my editor maintaining my includes or updating my lock files. I don’t need them to auto complete words or fix syntax for me.

    I know exactly what I’m doing. If I don’t then-- AND ONLY THEN, will I lookup what I need and fix it myself.

    if there’s a problem with formatting a linter will pick it up. if there’s a problem with syntax the runtime/compilation will pick it up. if there’s a problem with content uat will pick it up.

    we don’t need to be MORE productive, we need to be more skilled and using tools like these only soften the mind and dull the spirit.