Widespread adoption of AI coding tools like Cursor dramatically increases code output, shifting the primary development bottleneck from writing to reviewing. This creates a market for collaboration tools like Graphite and drives consolidation as platforms race to own the end-to-end developer loop.
Related Insights
While AI accelerates code generation, it creates significant new chokepoints. The high volume of AI-generated code leads to "pull request fatigue," requiring more human reviewers per change. It also overwhelms automated testing systems, which must run full cycles for every minor AI-driven adjustment, offsetting initial productivity gains.
As AI coding agents generate vast amounts of code, the most tedious part of a developer's job shifts from writing code to reviewing it. This creates a new product opportunity: building tools that help developers validate and build confidence in AI-written code, making the review process less of a chore.
AI tools are automating code generation, reducing the time developers spend writing it. Consequently, the primary skill shifts to carefully reviewing and verifying the AI-generated code for correctness and security. This means a developer's time is now spent more on review and architecture than on implementation.
Simply deploying AI to write code faster doesn't increase end-to-end velocity. It creates a new bottleneck where human engineers are overwhelmed with reviewing a flood of AI-generated code. To truly benefit, companies must also automate verification and validation processes.
AI acts as a massive force multiplier for software development. By using AI agents for coding and code review, with humans providing high-level direction and final approval, a two-person team can achieve the output of a much larger engineering organization.
As AI writes most of the code, the highest-leverage human activity will shift from reviewing pull requests to reviewing the AI's research and implementation plans. Collaborating on the plan provides a narrative journey of the upcoming changes, allowing for high-level course correction before hundreds of lines of bad code are ever generated.
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.
It's infeasible for humans to manually review thousands of lines of AI-generated code. The abstraction of review is moving up the stack. Instead of checking syntax, developers will validate high-level plans, two-sentence summaries, and behavioral outcomes in a testing environment.
As AI generates more code, the core engineering task evolves from writing to reviewing. Developers will spend significantly more time evaluating AI-generated code for correctness, style, and reliability, fundamentally changing daily workflows and skill requirements.
Cursor's founder predicts AI developer tools will bifurcate into two modes: a fast, "in-the-loop" copilot for pair programming, and a slower, asynchronous "agent" that completes entire tasks with perfect accuracy. This requires building products optimized for both speed and correctness.