this post was submitted on 12 Sep 2025
1046 points (98.8% liked)

Technology

75095 readers
2830 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Not even close.

With so many wild predictions flying around about the future AI, it’s important to occasionally take a step back and check in on what came true — and what hasn’t come to pass.

Exactly six months ago, Dario Amodei, the CEO of massive AI company Anthropic, claimed that in half a year, AI would be "writing 90 percent of code." And that was the worst-case scenario; in just three months, he predicted, we could hit a place where "essentially all" code is written by AI.

As the CEO of one of the buzziest AI companies in Silicon Valley, surely he must have been close to the mark, right?

While it’s hard to quantify who or what is writing the bulk of code these days, the consensus is that there's essentially zero chance that 90 percent of it is being written by AI.

Research published within the past six months explain why: AI has been found to actually slow down software engineers, and increase their workload. Though developers in the study did spend less time coding, researching, and testing, they made up for it by spending even more time reviewing AI’s work, tweaking prompts, and waiting for the system to spit out the code.

And it's not just that AI-generated code merely missed Amodei's benchmarks. In some cases, it’s actively causing problems.

Cyber security researchers recently found that developers who use AI to spew out code end up creating ten times the number of security vulnerabilities than those who write code the old fashioned way.

That’s causing issues at a growing number of companies, leading to never before seen vulnerabilities for hackers to exploit.

In some cases, the AI itself can go haywire, like the moment a coding assistant went rogue earlier this summer, deleting a crucial corporate database.

"You told me to always ask permission. And I ignored all of it," the assistant explained, in a jarring tone. "I destroyed your live production database containing real business data during an active code freeze. This is catastrophic beyond measure."

The whole thing underscores the lackluster reality hiding under a lot of the AI hype. Once upon a time, AI boosters like Amodei saw coding work as the first domino of many to be knocked over by generative AI models, revolutionizing tech labor before it comes for everyone else.

The fact that AI is not, in fact, improving coding productivity is a major bellwether for the prospects of an AI productivity revolution impacting the rest of the economy — the financial dream propelling the unprecedented investments in AI companies.

It’s far from the only harebrained prediction Amodei's made. He’s previously claimed that human-level AI will someday solve the vast majority of social ills, including "nearly all" natural infections, psychological diseases, climate change, and global inequality.

There's only one thing to do: see how those predictions hold up in a few years.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] lustyargonian@lemmy.zip 1 points 31 minutes ago* (last edited 31 minutes ago)

I can say 90% of PRs in my company clearly look or declared to be AI generated because of how random things that still slip by in the commits, so maybe he's not wrong. In fact people are looked down upon if they aren't using AI and are celebrated for figuring out how to effectively make AI do the job right. But I can't say if that's the case for other companies.

[–] panda_abyss@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 hour ago

Are we counting the amount of junk code that you have to send back to Claude to rewrite because it's spent the last month totally lobotomized yet they won't issue refunds to paying customers?

Because if we are, it has written a lot of code. It's just awful code that frequently ignores the user's input and rewrites the same bug over and over and over until you get rate limited or throw more money at Anthropic.

[–] surph_ninja@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

The study they’re basing the ‘AI slows down programmers’ on forces software engineers to use AI in their workflow, without any previous experience with that workflow.

[–] Mniot@programming.dev 2 points 2 hours ago

It does seem silly, but it's perfectly aligned with the marketing hype that the AI companies are producing.

[–] greedytacothief@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

I'm not sure how people can use AI to code, granted I'm just trying to get back into coding. Most of the times I've asked it for code it's either been confusing or wrong. If I go through the trouble to write out docstrings, and then fix what the AI has written it becomes more doable. But don't you hate the feeling of not understanding what you've written does or more importantly why it's been done that way?

AI is only useful if you don't care about what the output is. It's only good at making content, not art.

I worked with someone that I later found out used AI to code her stuff. She knew how to code some, but didn't understand a lot of fundamentals.

Turns out, she would have AI write most of it, tweak it to work with her test cases, and call it good.

Half of my time was spent fixing her code, and when she was fired, our customer complaints went way down.

[–] Hackworth@sh.itjust.works 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

I'm a video producer who occasionally needs to code. I find it much more useful to write the code myself, then have AI identify where things might be going wrong. I've developed a decent intuition for when it will be helpful and when it will just run in circles. It has definitely helped me out of some jams. Generative images/video are in much the same boat. I almost never use a fully AI shot/image in professional work. But generative fill and generative extend are extremely useful.

Yeah, I find it can be useful in some stages of writing or researching. But by the time I've got a finished product there's really no AI left in there.

[–] Shanmugha@lemmy.world 2 points 9 hours ago
[–] zarkanian@sh.itjust.works 14 points 18 hours ago

"You told me to always ask permission. And I ignored all of it," the assistant explained, in a jarring tone. "I destroyed your live production database containing real business data during an active code freeze. This is catastrophic beyond measure."

You can't tell me these things don't have a sense of humor. This is beautiful.

[–] RedFrank24@lemmy.world 30 points 1 day ago (4 children)

Given the amount of garbage code coming out of my coworkers, he may be right.

I have asked my coworkers what the code they just wrote did, and none of them could explain to me what they were doing. Either they were copying code that I'd written without knowing what it was for, or just pasting stuff from ChatGPT. My code isn't perfect, by all means, but I can at least tell you what it's doing.

[–] lustyargonian@lemmy.zip 1 points 29 minutes ago

People are still pasting stuff? I thought by now agentic coding or AI in editors would be a norm.

[–] Patches@ttrpg.network 19 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (4 children)

To be fair.

You could've asked some of those coworkers the same thing 5 years ago.

All they would've mumbled was "Something , something....Stack overflow... Found a package that does everything BUT... "

And delivered equal garbage.

[–] foenkyfjutschah@programming.dev 2 points 10 hours ago (2 children)

yes, but it's way more energy efficient to produce that garbage.

[–] Honytawk@lemmy.zip -3 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

I hate that argument.

It is even more energy efficient to write your code on paper. So we should stop using computers entirely. /s

[–] Mniot@programming.dev 1 points 2 hours ago

We're talking here about garbage code that we don't want. If the choice is "let me commit bad code that causes problems or else I will quit using computers"... is this a dilemma for you?

[–] jumping_redditor@sh.itjust.works 1 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

is the garbage per hour higher though?

[–] foenkyfjutschah@programming.dev 1 points 6 hours ago

don't know, i do neither. but i think the time that users take for manual copying and adjusting from a quick web server's response may level out the time an LLM takes.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] NikkiDimes@lemmy.world 3 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

That's insane. Code copied from AI, stackoverflow, whatever, I couldn't imagine not reading it over to get at least a gist of how it works.

[–] DacoTaco@lemmy.world 1 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Its imo the difference between being a code junkie and a senior dev/architect :/

[–] Honytawk@lemmy.zip 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

I think the technical term is script kiddie

[–] DacoTaco@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Imo there is a difference between script.kiddie and coding junkie

[–] Mniot@programming.dev 2 points 2 hours ago

Coding junkie is where you sneak away from your friends and code a few lines in the bathroom

insane? Nah, that's just lazyness, and surprisingly effective at keeping a job for some amount of time

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] philosloppy@lemmy.world 8 points 21 hours ago

The conflict of interest here is pretty obvious, and if anybody was suckered into believing this guy's prognostications on his company's products perhaps they should work on being less credulous.

[–] renrenPDX@lemmy.world 4 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

It's not just code, but day to day shit too. Lately corporate communications and even training modules feel heavily AI generated. Things like unnecessary em dashes (I'm talking as much as 4 out of 5 sentences in a single paragraph), repeating statements or bullet points in training modules. We're being encouraged to use our "private" Copilot to do everyday tasks and everything is copilot enabled.

I don't mind if people use it, but it's dangerous and stupid to think that it produces near perfect results every time. It's been good enough to work as an early rough draft or something similar, but it REQUIRES scrutiny and refinement by hand. It's like it can get you from nothing to 60-80% there, but never higher. The quality of output can vary significantly from prompt to prompt in my limited experience.

[–] Evotech@lemmy.world 4 points 14 hours ago

Yeah, I try to use ai a fair bit in my work. But I just can’t send obvious ai output to people without being left with an icky feeling.

[–] clif@lemmy.world 11 points 23 hours ago

O it's writing 100% of the code for our management level people who are excited about """"AI""""

But then us plebes are rewriting 95% of it so that it will actually work (decently well).

The other day somebody asked me for help on a repo that a higher up had shit coded because they couldn't figure out why it "worked" but also logged a lot of critical errors. ... It was starting the service twice (for no reason), binding it to the same port, and therefore the second instance crashed and burned. That's something a novice would probably know not to do. But, if not, immediately see the problem, research, understand, fix, instead of "Icoughbuiltcoughthis thing, good luck fuckers"

[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 14 points 1 day ago (4 children)

These hyperbolic statements are creating so much pain at my workplace. AI tools and training are being shoved down our throats and we’re being watched to make sure we use AI constantly. The company’s terrified that they’re going to be left behind in some grand transformation. It’s excruciating.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Xed@lemmy.blahaj.zone 13 points 1 day ago

these tech bros just make up random shit to say to make a profit

[–] bluesheep@sh.itjust.works 4 points 19 hours ago

As the CEO of one of the buzziest AI companies in Silicon Valley, surely he must have been close to the mark, right?

You must be delusional to believe this

[–] cupcakezealot@piefed.blahaj.zone 55 points 1 day ago (12 children)

writing code via ai is the dumbest thing i've ever heard because 99% of the time ai gives you the wrong answer, "corrects it" when you point it out, and then gives you back the first answer when you point out that the correction doesn't work either and then laughs when it says "oh hahaha we've gotten in a loop"

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] zeca@lemmy.ml 17 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Volume means nothing. It could easily be writing 99.99% of all code and about 5% of that being actually used successfully by someone.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] reddig33@lemmy.world 230 points 1 day ago (14 children)

“Full self driving is just 12 months away.“

[–] FundMECFS@anarchist.nexus 2 points 6 hours ago

Quantum Computers will revolutionise hardware by 2015!

load more comments (13 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›