Are You Fooling Yourself About AI Productivity and Costs?

These articles are so off from reality to the point that it can't be taken seriously at all. I keep wondering how they keep popping at HN.

At least the author admit he is biased..

Zitron might be right about the economics of it, maybe it really does come crashing down. But we won't be forgetting about it. Even if AI stopped progressing today, it will still be massively, undeniably, insanely useful.

I could use current models forever. LLM does things for me that couldn't be done in 2023. I don't want to go back to a world without it, but I'm also ok with progress stalling right here.

As for the productivity benefits, I find there is a kind of skeptic that just has his eyes closed. Open an AI page, ask it to write you an app that renames all your scientific papers so they have their title as the filename instead of the weird long number.

Without AI you could easily waste an hour looking for the right PDF library and working out how to use it. Or fiddling with the file search mechanism so that you only get the articles and not every file in your downloads. Now you will have the files renamed in a few minutes, and a tool that keeps them correct every time you have download some more.

How is this not a productivity win? It clearly is. Do we really need a double blind test to check this kind of thing?

Whether it gets squandered in modern orgs is another matter, but the core win is clear for everyone to see.

I think it's very productive in areas that aren't economically impactful. Reverse engineering old windows games for example. Doing absurd ports between languages.

I think it really depends on your knowledge and skill, and the kind of work you are using it for. It's hard to measure because the more you use it the more you lose some skills. But I have to admit that I can do much more parallel work when using the best models. It's messy, because sometimes I feel that I get lazier and just prompt them and go do some random stuff and sometimes even skip the part of verifying what they actually did meanwhile. But you can command AI to do massive stuff, you can get smart non developers to do useful work with them, it's really a new paradigm. One funny thing that I think people should consider more is pride in the code. If I code something by hand, like fully developing a service, I will get proud of seeing it work, I will attach to it like if it's my creation. That hardly happens if I use AI a lot.

Now imagine if this was written about the first steam engines being used inefficiently to pull coal up out the ground and pump out the water. It's so expensive -- is this really more effective than just hiring 50 men? We all know how that ended up...

These people keep citing that survey from 2025.

That kills all arguments from the article instantly.

December 2025 through today GenAI has become massively better. I’ve built things with Claude in contracted spans of time that would have been man-years in the before times.

I think you might be fooling yourself. Personal-plan subscription subsidies do not equate to "it's not viable, and all of it is about to be shut off." If that were true, then Kilo Code, Claude Code, Cline, Pi, and Command Code would not be occupying 5 of the top 10 apps using OpenRouter. People have purchased 20 trillion tokens this month already for coding on OpenRouter alone at full-price market rates.

Would you commission a study about whether cars are really a faster form of locomotion before deciding to purchase one?

There is empirical data right in front of your face. You're just choosing to exclude it because of where you already stand.

That's exactly what Feynman was warning about.