Many developers dismiss AI coding tools as a fad based on experiences with earlier, less capable versions. The rapid, non-linear progress means perceptions become dated in months, creating a massive capability gap between what skeptics believe and what current tools can actually do.
Related Insights
Human intuition is a poor gauge of AI's actual productivity benefits. A study found developers felt significantly sped up by AI coding tools even when objective measurements showed no speed increase. The real value may come from enabling tasks that otherwise wouldn't be attempted, rather than simply accelerating existing workflows.
A paradox of rapid AI progress is the widening "expectation gap." As users become accustomed to AI's power, their expectations for its capabilities grow even faster than the technology itself. This leads to a persistent feeling of frustration, even though the tools are objectively better than they were a year ago.
Dismissing AI coding tools after a few hours is a mistake. A study suggests it takes about a year or 2,000 hours of use for an engineer to truly trust an AI assistant. This trust is defined as the ability to accurately predict the AI's output, capabilities, and limitations.
Most AI coding tools automate the creative part developers enjoy. Factory AI's CEO argues the real value is automating the “organizational molasses”—documentation, testing, and reviews—that consumes most of an enterprise developer’s time and energy.
Internal surveys highlight a critical paradox in AI adoption: while over 80% of Stack Overflow's developer community uses or plans to use AI, only 29% trust its output. This significant "trust gap" explains persistent user skepticism and creates a market opportunity for verified, human-curated data.
A recent study found that AI assistants actually slowed down programmers working on complex codebases. More importantly, the programmers mistakenly believed the AI was speeding them up. This suggests a general human bias towards overestimating AI's current effectiveness, which could lead to flawed projections about future progress.
Experienced programmers are urged to stop dismissing AI coding tools. The experience is described as "revolutionary," and even a one-hour trial on a toy project will reveal that it's the clear next evolution of programming, not a gimmick.
Kevin Rose argues against forming fixed opinions on AI capabilities. The technology leapfrogs every 4-8 weeks, meaning a developer who found AI coding assistants "horrible" three months ago is judging a tool that is now 3-4 times better. One must continuously re-evaluate AI tools to stay current.
Many technical leaders initially dismissed generative AI for its failures on simple logical tasks. However, its rapid, tangible improvement over a short period forces a re-evaluation and a crucial mindset shift towards adoption to avoid being left behind.
Data on AI tool adoption among engineers is conflicting. One A/B test showed that the highest-performing senior engineers gained the biggest productivity boost. However, other companies report that opinionated senior engineers are the most resistant to using AI tools, viewing their output as subpar.
