Once AI coding agents reach a high performance level, objective benchmarks become less important than a developer's subjective experience. Like a warrior choosing a sword, the best tool is often the one that has the right "feel," writes code in a preferred style, and integrates seamlessly into a human workflow.

Treating AI coding tools like an asynchronous junior engineer, rather than a synchronous pair programmer, sets correct expectations. This allows users to delegate tasks, go to meetings, and check in later, enabling true multi-threading of work without the need to babysit the tool.

The most effective users of AI tools don't treat them as black boxes. They succeed by using AI to go deeper, understand the process, question outputs, and iterate. In contrast, those who get stuck use AI to distance themselves from the work, avoiding the need to learn or challenge the results.

AI coding tools can rapidly build the first 70% of an application, but the final 30%—the complex, unique features that define your vision—will consume the vast majority of your development time. This is a critical reality check for anyone starting with these tools.

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.

AI coding assistants won't make fundamental skills obsolete. Instead, they act as a force multiplier that separates engineers. Great engineers use AI to become exceptional by augmenting their deep understanding, while mediocre engineers who rely on it blindly will fall further behind.

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.

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.

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.