undefined

points

[-]

100% - I think that is also part of the divide you see online. Devs who work on massive codebases w/ 100s of engineers and see the bugs the LLMs create vs devs who work on smaller codebase w/ small <5 person team.

by aantix2 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

It's a tradeoff.

Generating a feature that is 90% correct in a tenth of the time is a reasonable tradeoff if you're trying to gain traction.

Generating a feature that is 90% correct in a tenth of the time, risking a multi-billion-dollar business, is a terrible tradeoff.

by 2001zhaozhao1 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I think it's rather:

Small teams building continuously get to write features that are 90% correct in a tenth of the time.

Big enterprises get to write features that are 90% correct barely twice as fast, because all of the bottleneck lies elsewhere. They also spend more on AI per user because of the internal dynamics pushing people to adopt AI irresponsibly. They can correct the 10% of errors slower than small teams because of bureaucracy, increasing the cost of errors that show up in the product. Furthermore, they have less to gain from a given amount of speedup because they had plenty of engineering velocity anyway compared to small teams.

I don't think big enterprises will start winning from AI technology until AI truly can automate almost everything in a company and let said company outproduce competitors by burning tokens alone. That's nowhere near possible right now.

by dylan6042 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

Even small teams are not immune from the AI push. I work in a small <10 people with 3 devs. I'm the only one not using AI while receiving push that I'm a problem for not. To the point, VP of company says if we don't all start using AI we'll be out of business because other people will. :face-palm:

by niwtsol2 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

You don't use AI at all? What is your main justification for not?

by nitwit0051 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I'd definitely say IntelliJ improved my productivity. No one cared. If anything, management viewed it as a nuisance as they had to deal with the license.

Now there is demands to justify not using AI like this, but people don't care about details. Which AI tool I use apparently doesn't matter at all, even if there are presumably productivity differences between them.

Edit: typo

by pesus2 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Seems like you should have a justification for introducing a new tool instead, no? There are thousands of other tools they're also not using, but we're not asking about those.

by rowanseymour1 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

To be clear I meant it's good to be small team on the assumption that we're all using AI... I honestly can't imagine not using AI in May 2026.

by foldr2 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

I think the jury’s still out on how big an impact AI will have on overall, average productivity. But it’s definitely a productivity boost for someone who’s capable of writing code without it. If you want to be super conservative, don’t even have it write any code. Use it to search through existing codebases, review your code, find the root cause of bug reports, evaluate pros and cons of alternative approaches, etc. etc. You’re really missing out by not using it at all.

Here’s a concrete example of conservative AI usage: I use Claude to vibe code my nvim config. Now, who cares if my nvim config is AI slop? What’s the worst that can happen? Nvim works for me now way better than it ever did when I was limited by the time I was willing to spend configuring it manually.