A recent survey reveals a stark disconnect: executives claim massive productivity gains from AI (8-12+ hours/week), while 40% of non-management staff report zero time savings. This highlights a failure in training and personalized use case development for frontline employees.

There's a significant gap between AI performance on structured benchmarks and its real-world utility. A randomized controlled trial (RCT) found that open-source software developers were actually slowed down by 20% when using AI assistants, despite being miscalibrated to believe the tools were helping. This highlights the limitations of current evaluation methods.

AI tools provide quantifiable productivity gains in technical fields. Developers using GitHub Copilot, for instance, finish tasks approximately 55% faster. Furthermore, 88% of these developers report feeling more productive, demonstrating that AI augmentation leads to significant and measurable improvements in workflow efficiency and employee satisfaction.

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 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.

While AI coding assistants appear to boost output, they introduce a "rework tax." A Stanford study found AI-generated code leads to significant downstream refactoring. A team might ship 40% more code, but if half of that increase is just fixing last week's AI-generated "slop," the real productivity gain is much lower than headlines suggest.

Developers using AI agents report unprecedented productivity but also a decline in job satisfaction. The creative act of writing code is replaced by the tedious task of reviewing vast amounts of AI-generated output, shifting their role to feel more like a middle manager of code.

AI coding tools disproportionately amplify the productivity of senior, sophisticated engineers who can effectively guide them and validate their output. For junior developers, these tools can be a liability, producing code they don't understand, which can introduce security bugs or fail code reviews. Success requires experience.

A Meta study found expert programmers were less productive with AI tools. The speaker suggests this is because users thought they were faster while actually being distracted (e.g., social media) waiting for the AI, highlighting a dangerous gap between perceived and actual productivity.