There are definitely many open questions around things like what tasks is AI appropriate for, how involved should you be in the process (fully automated agent swarms, or planning steps back and forth with human input on every decision), at what level of usage might you hit diminishing or negative returns, will we be able to continue to use it at this rate / price, will it get cheaper or will energy use continue to rise, how much will AI improve in the future, how will AI use affect people's development or temperament, will skills atrophy, will people no longer learn critical skills, how will we deal with AI spam or a loss of "proof of work" in producing a lengthy written artifact.... in sum there is no shortage of AI related topics worth exploring and thinking deeply about.

Some people still suggest that AI flat out isn't useful though, and that angle to me doesn't hold much water. I was a slow AI adopter, but I have found plenty of benefit from using AI in various applications recently. I haven't come close to using on the level of some people who orchestrate agents and rarely read or touch the code they are writing, but there have been clear times when I popped into Claude and had it help me very successfully with something that would have taken longer to do without that help. So increasingly I am skeptical of anyone positing that there is no potential benefit to appropriately using AI assistance. I think the author could rewrite around the angle of their perceived negative externalities outweighing potential advantages, but to deny or ignore those potential benefits ultimately distracts or actively takes away from a serious discussion of said negative externalities.

I don't put much stock in the very very frequently cited study about AI productivity included in this blog. It's a single study. The study itself cites multiple other studies that did find a productivity boost in writing software with AI assistance. I don't see the methodology as being very sound, the sample size isn't very big, some of those developers had likely never used AI before so of course they were slower as they explored using a new tool for the first time (which the study more or less writes off as a non-factor). They also used "Claude 3.5/3.7 Sonnet", which is not the strongest model. I personally find the Sonnet family of models not that useful and much more inaccurate than something like Opus or Fable.