For 3 years, I’ve watched the AI coding revolution unfold with a mixture of fascination and frustration. As somebody who’s constructed and led AI engineering and product groups at Google, SwiftKey, Yahoo, and past, I’m calling it: we’re collectively falling for a productiveness mirage.
We’re celebrating typing velocity whereas ignoring the precise bottlenecks that cripple software program growth and most annoy dev groups.
Builders solely spend a few hours every day writing code, and so they hate this. They spend most of their time “not making their beer style higher”, and doing soul-sucking boring work. Scaffolding tasks, managing tickets, refining tales, fixing bugs, dealing with tech debt, writing checks, fixing construct points… you solely want to take a look at the Stack Overflow weblog to listen to the outcry. But, as a society, we’re pouring thousands and thousands into making these 1-2 hours marginally sooner – these hours the place devs even have essentially the most enjoyable.
The issue with dopamine
We’re witnessing what I name “the 80% drawback” throughout the trade – a dopamine hit that hides the true ache. What do I imply by this? I used to joke that, with dangerous administration, “the primary 80% takes 20% of the time, and the remaining 20% takes… 80% of the time”. Properly, we’re managing AI badly. Present AI instruments get you 80% of the best way shortly, making a dopamine hit of productiveness. It’s the final 20% that wastes all of your time financial savings. It’s like sprinting the primary 19 miles of a marathon and feeling nice, however then having completely no legs to complete off the remaining 7 miles you will have left.
It’s that 20% that incorporates many of the refined bugs as a result of AI has made a litany of minute errors which have piled up, with out oversight. It’s this remaining 20% that represents the precise design problem requiring human experience – and actually, that ought to have been finished in collaboration with the AI, not after the AI. The result’s a psychological mirage the place builders really feel productive initially, however staff velocity stays stubbornly unchanged. Even worse, you’re increase technical debt within the type of poor high quality that, over time, means your product and expertise begins to slowly crumble beneath the AI code-slop.
This tunnel imaginative and prescient is baffling when you’re a reliable supervisor. To attract on one other analogy – think about Toyota revolutionizing manufacturing by solely optimizing how shortly staff insert screws, whereas ignoring the complete manufacturing line. We’d chortle at such restricted considering. But that is exactly what’s taking place with AI coding instruments.
A current Wired survey of 730 builders captured this completely, with many seeing AI as “helpful, however clueless”—primarily a hyperefficient intern that also can’t deal with context, edge circumstances, or actual problem-solving. This matches precisely what I’ve noticed in enterprise environments.
Talking with CTOs throughout the trade, I’ve but to search out one who can show constant, measurable enchancment in supply metrics from their AI investments. The place are the SEC filings displaying dependable 20+% speedups? They don’t exist, as a result of we’re optimizing the flawed issues.
As a substitute, we’re reworking builders into glorified secretaries for AI – manually ferrying context between methods, copy-pasting specs, and cleansing up hallucinated code. The bitter irony is that instruments meant to get rid of tedious work have created a brand new type of drudgery, eliminated the enjoyable, and even created new messes. You’re not utilizing the AI—you’re serving it. It’s straightforward to really feel productive initially, however it’s not sustainable until you carry full context to the AI… at which level you’re primarily working for the AI, not the opposite manner round.
Affected by purchaser’s regret?
Given the frenzy of spending over the previous few years, I can’t simply complain, so right here’s some remedial recommendation to these CTOs who didn’t preserve the receipt on these AI coding instruments:
First, demand measurement past vainness metrics. Focus solely on time from a well-written ticket to deployment – that’s the one throughput that issues. Don’t ask devs whether or not they “really feel extra productive” as a result of they’ve outsourced considering to AIs.
Second, prioritize high quality alongside velocity. You possibly can’t settle for that writing refined defects into your code sooner is an effective trade-off. Context is every little thing in engineering, and instruments that may’t entry and perceive your full growth context will at all times ship subpar outcomes. Instruments ought to uncover the context for you; why are you chasing down context for the AI? Are the instruments checks and structure docs robotically? Are they operating what they write towards your checks robotically and fixing the problems? Are they operating your linters or following your most elementary coding necessities?
Third, widen your scope of optimization, don’t slender it. This feels counterintuitive – we’re taught to ship in skinny slices. However the best system enhancements come from world optimizations, not native ones. It’s like my expertise constructing IoT units: moderately than squeezing 15% higher efficiency by optimizing a power-hungry GPS chip, we solved the native drawback by fixing it globally: we added a 2-cent movement sensor and a 5-cent low-power processor that triggered the GPS solely when wanted, reworking battery life solely.
The really transformative alternative lies in eradicating whole steps out of your course of, not optimizing particular person ones. Why are we paying senior engineers £150k to manually create branches and scaffold boilerplate code? Why will we care in any respect about typing velocity now?
Contemplate Stripe and Netflix – their aggressive benefit comes not from typing code sooner however from ruthlessly eliminating handoffs and bottlenecks between groups. Stripe invested closely in streamlining code critiques, testing automation, and deployments between engineering, product, QA, and operations groups. Netflix targeted on automated supply pipelines and chaos engineering practices that minimized bottlenecks between dev, ops, and deployment groups, enabling fast world deployments.
This isn’t nearly effectivity – it’s a strategic benefit. Whereas others have a good time marginal coding positive factors, firms addressing the total growth lifecycle are getting into markets sooner and responding to buyer wants earlier than opponents even perceive the necessities. It’s the distinction between market management and irrelevance. And you’ve got a little bit of time earlier than your opponents get up and transfer on this earlier than you do – however time is shortly operating out.
The trail ahead is obvious: deal with AI as a system that completes whole duties, not as a glorified autocomplete. Measure success by way of significant DORA metrics, not strains of code generated. And demand that AI adapts to your staff’s established processes, not vice versa.
The query isn’t whether or not AI will remodel software program growth. It completely will. The query is whether or not we’ll optimize what truly issues. And whether or not you’re main or following.
