Great for the authors. But everyone else seems to be extrapolating. Authors have a responsibility and should recognize how their work will be used.
Metr may overall have an ok mission, but their motivation is questionable. They published something like this to get attention. Mission accomplished on that but they had to have known how this would be twisted.
It was just published. Too new for someone to conduct a direct study to critique and journals don't just publish critiques anyway. It would have to be a study that disputes the results.
They used 16 developers. The confidence intervals are wide and a few atypical issues per dev could swing the headline figure.
Veteran maintainers on projects they know inside-out. This is a bias.
Devs supplied the issue list (then randomized) which still leads to subtle self-selection bias. Maintainers may pick tasks they enjoy or that showcase deep repo knowledge—exactly where AI probably has least marginal value.
Time was not independently logged and was self-reported.
No possible direct quality metric is possible. Could the AI code be better?
The Hawthorne effect. Knowing they are observed paid may make devs over-document, over-prompt, or simply take their time.
One mediocre paper/study (it should not even be called that with all the bias and sample size issues) and now we have to put up with stories re-hashing and dissecting it. I really hope these don't get upvoted more in the future.
16 devs. And they weren't allowed to pick which tasks they used the AI on. Ridiculous. Also using it on "old and >1 million line" codebases and then extrapolating that to software engineering in general.
Writers like this then theorize why AI isn't helpful, then those "theories" get repeated until it feels less like a theory and more like a fact and it all proliferates into an echo chamber of AI isn't a useful tool. There have been too many anecdotes and my own personal experience to ignore that it isn't useful.
It is a tool and you have to learn it to be successful with it.
I have a suspicion it does use budget forcing. The word "alternatively" also frequently show up and it happens when it seems logically that a </think> tag could have been place.
I don't work at gitlab but one great avenue is working on large open source rails apps. And gitlab is actually open source. Try to get it up and running and tackle an issue they have.
International law is complex. Having a full-time employee located in another country can lead to a lot of legal unknowns. At the very least this requires a company to spend the money to understand if they are exposing themselves to any international laws that are unknown to them. I am not a lawyer but have run businesses in the past and legally that would scare the hell out of me. Also, benefits were brought up by the other commenter but it wasn't addressed in the legal context. How do ADA and FMLA and other benefits work when the employee is living in another country? These are all questions that are a burden on a company. Why should they legally have to shoulder the burden?
Having fully remote employees within the US is a large burden in and of itself. It is very very hard unless a company has resources that can address that. Each employee in a different state or location is basically treated like a separate office. You are basically asking a company to open an office in Mexico.
Can you point me to some of the Tony Robbins stuff that is good for this in particular? I find myself worrying more and more about losing what I am gaining.
In publicly traded companies the shares are taxed when they vest. So when they give you the 100k in stock, you are taxed on the 100k (usually they withhold a portion of the stock in vesting programs).