It sounds like you're very productive without AI or that your perceived gains are pretty small. To me, it's such a stark contrast that asking how I measure it is like asking me to objectively verify that a car is faster than walking.
“I'm eating fewer calories yet keep putting on weight.”
There's a reason self-reported measures are questioned: they have been wildly off in different domains. Objectively verifying that a car is faster than walking is easy. When it's not easy to objectively prove something, then there are a lot that could go wrong, including the disagreements on the definition of what's being measured.
You're talking about cases where the measured productivity gains were marginal. Claiming my individual productivity gains are imaginary is simply absurd. I know I am more productive and it's a fact.
Again, people who were already highly productive without AI won't understand how profound the increase is.
Well said, people keep acting like one study that has issues can be quoted at me and it somehow erases the fact that I’ve seen simply undeniable productivity gains, drives me mad. I get the feeling no measurement system would satiate them anyway as their intent is to undermine you because emotionally they’re not ready to accept the usefulness of LLMs.
If I showed them time gains, they’d just say “well you don’t know how much tech debt you’re creating”, they’d find a weasel way to ignore any methodology we used.
If they didn’t, they wouldn’t be conveniently ignoring all but that one study that is skeptical of productivity gains.
