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.
Related Insights
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.
The most significant productivity gains come from applying AI to every stage of development, including research, planning, product marketing, and status updates. Limiting AI to just code generation misses the larger opportunity to automate the entire engineering process.
While many believe AI will primarily help average performers become great, LinkedIn's experience shows the opposite. Their top talent were the first and most effective adopters of new AI tools, using them to become even more productive. This suggests AI may amplify existing talent disparities.
High productivity isn't about using AI for everything. It's a disciplined workflow: breaking a task into sub-problems, using an LLM for high-leverage parts like scaffolding and tests, and reserving human focus for the core implementation. This avoids the sunk cost of forcing AI on unsuitable tasks.
Block's CTO observes a U-shaped curve in AI adoption among engineers. The most junior engineers embrace it naturally, like digital natives. The most senior engineers are also highly eager, as they recognize the potential to automate tedious tasks they've performed countless times, freeing them up for high-level architectural work.
Dr. Fei-Fei Li states she won't hire any software engineer who doesn't embrace AI collaborative tools. This isn't about the tools' perfection, but what their adoption signals: a candidate's open-mindedness, ability to grow with new toolkits, and potential to "superpower" their own work.
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.
Leaders often misjudge their teams' enthusiasm for AI. The reality is that skepticism and resistance are more common than excitement. This requires framing AI adoption as a human-centric change management challenge, focusing on winning over doubters rather than simply deploying new technology.
Experience alone no longer determines engineering productivity. An engineer's value is now a function of their experience plus their fluency with AI tools. Experienced coders who haven't adapted are now less valuable than AI-native recent graduates, who are in high demand.
AI disproportionately benefits top performers, who use it to amplify their output significantly. This creates a widening skills and productivity gap, leading to workplace tension as "A-players" can increasingly perform tasks previously done by their less-motivated colleagues, which could cause resentment and organizational challenges.
