Contributors:
By Sebastian Springer, Paul Dubs, Christoph Henkelmann, Melanie Bauer, Rainer Hahnekamp, Pieter Buteneers, Tam Hanna, Rainer Stropek, Christian Weyer, Veikko Krypczyk.
Sebastian Springer:
Lately, there have been several studies highlighting the negative aspects of AI: AI makes us less productive, less creative… I believe it really depends on how we use the tools. The same could be said about search engines or platforms like Stack Overflow. If I rely on such channels for every aspect of my work, I’d become less productive as well. With modern AI tools, the risk is naturally greater, since they’re much more integrated into our work environments and are far more intuitive to use.
On the topic of productivity: Personally, I feel more productive thanks to tools like Copilot and similar tools. That’s mainly because I use them to solve repetitive tasks. There are situations where writing a good prompt takes significantly longer than writing the code myself. And of course, working with AI tools comes with the risk of being distracted from the actual problem or heading in the wrong direction. In other cases, the suggestions the AI offers – without any manual prompt – are exactly what I need.
In general, I think: Whether AI makes us unproductive, uncreative, or even dumb – it’s a technology that’s established itself in the market, and one we simply can’t ignore. So, we should focus on leveraging its strengths. And if we already know it has downsides (as almost every technology does), we should try to avoid those pitfalls as much as possible. Besides, AI is in good company: People once claimed that steam engines would never be economical, newspapers would overwhelm us mentally, and written information in general was dangerous – let alone the internet, which supposedly makes people stupid and causes crime to skyrocket. There’s always a grain of truth in every accusation, but in the end, it all comes down to how we deal with it.
Paul Dubs:
Based on my experience with AI tooling for development, which I discussed in a keynote at the JAX conference in May, the impact on productivity is highly dependent on how these tools are used and the developer’s experience level with them. The study actually supports what I’ve observed: there’s a significant learning curve with AI development tools. The one developer in that study who had substantial prior experience with Cursor was notably faster, an anomaly that proves the point. Like any tool, you need to know how to use it effectively to see productivity gains.
During my keynote, I described using agentic AI coding tools as “playing chess with a pigeon”: they would destroy the game and claim victory. Claude Code struggled to navigate projects properly and would even sabotage its own progress by resetting the Git state. The Claude 3.5 / 3.7 models used in the study weren’t well-suited for larger changes or project navigation. However, things changed dramatically with Claude 4’s release at the end of May. Even the smaller, faster Sonnet model became quite capable when used correctly. I now use Roo Code, a Visual Studio Code plugin that allows me to create specialized prompts for different tasks: debugging, programming, documentation, and language-specific work. This customization has made me considerably more productive.
The productivity gains aren’t uniform across all project types. I’m much more productive on greenfield (new) projects. For brownfield (existing) projects requiring major changes, I need to provide extensive additional context, often directly referencing the specific files the AI needs to work with. When I handle the navigation burden myself, the AI can be quite effective. There’s an important caveat: using AI tools creates a knowledge and memory gap. Since I’m not writing every line myself, it feels like delegating to someone else and doing a quick review. When I return to AI-generated code later, I need to reread it because I don’t fully remember the implementation details. It’s similar to working on a project where multiple developers touch every piece: you lose that intimate familiarity with the codebase.
The study’s findings align with my experience: developers unfamiliar with AI tools often see productivity losses, while those with significant experience can achieve net gains. The outlier in the study who was more productive validates this. Success with AI coding tools requires understanding their limitations, using them appropriately for the task at hand, and accepting the trade-off between speed and deep code familiarity.
Christoph Henkelmann:
The issue with AI-assisted coding is the same as with many current AI debates: it’s dominated by hype and quick dismissals, rather than a nuanced understanding. Yes, AI tools can deliver massive productivity gains – but only if you actually learn how to use them. This means understanding the basics of LLMs, knowing your domain, and practicing with the tools until you develop a sense for when they help and when they don’t. Most people just install something like Cursor and expect miracles. Naturally, this leads to disappointment. “Vibe coding” might get you a prototype, but real productivity comes from what Paul Dubs calls “omega coding”: deep domain knowledge, familiarity with your tools, and persistent practice. These tools don’t replace thinking; they amplify skill. Managers hoping for instant results will see the opposite at first: initial productivity drops, much like switching to a new IDE. But if you invest the time to learn and adapt, the gains are real and substantial. Most don’t (or better: aren’t given the time to do so), which is why recent studies show lackluster results.
Melanie Bauer:
As an informatics student, I spend a lot of time researching and learning about new tools and topics, especially in the field of software development. AI tools have made this process significantly easier and faster for me. For example, when I have a question, I can get direct and precise answers without having to scroll through extensive documentation.
That’s why tools like GitHub Copilot, Cursor, and ChatGPT have become a regular part of my workflow as a future software developer. Of course, at the end of the day, AI doesn’t think for me, and I am still responsible for reviewing and validating the generated output. But overall, I’ve noticed a clear increase in my productivity, especially when it comes to routine tasks, reducing the ramp-up time when learning new technologies, or understanding code snippets and programming concepts by having them broken down and explained step by step.
Rainer Hahnekamp:
Based on my experience, the use of AI in software development can be divided into three levels:
- Code Completion in the IDE: Here, AI offers valuable support by suggesting small code snippets that boost productivity without taking control away from the developer.
- Automated Code Generation: In this area – where the AI generates larger code blocks or even entire files – I’ve found that the time required to correct and adapt the output often outweighs the immediate benefit. Still, I see this as an investment in learning how to work with AI effectively. While it may currently slow things down, I’m confident that the technology will improve – and when it does, I want to be ready to make the most of it.
- AI-Supported Research and Conceptual Work: Using AI as a sparring partner for brainstorming, idea generation, and problem-solving has proven extremely helpful. It supports creativity and often leads to productive insights.
Personally, I can’t confirm a loss in productivity – quite the opposite. While I haven’t read the details of the referenced study, I suspect the reasons might be due to the current lack of best practices and the necessary intuition for using AI effectively. And, of course, to be transparent, this statement reflects my personal opinion, but the wording was created with the assistance of AI 😉.
Pieter Buteneers:
I use the following AI tools:
Cursor (the agents are a big step forward) (my go-to tool)
ChatGPT (GPT 4.1) (if cursor makes mistakes)
Claude 4 Sonnet if the above don’t know the answer which is once every 2-3 weeks or so.
In terms of advantages, I started using typescript (ts) instead of python and it really helps me understand the syntax and convert python code into ts much faster. It writes fewer errors in ts than in python, allows me to write more code, writes unit tests for me and allows me to use new packages/technology much faster. It helps me with the DevOps side of things which I am a real noob at. Overall, it makes me about 2 times faster
I use it a lot to brainstorm ideas and figure out best/bad practices, but it comes with a huge list of caveats. There is a lot of code duplication since it doesn’t know your entire code. So, your code becomes hard to maintain and turns into ‘spaghetti’ fast. Cursor often fixes a bug by just writing some code to cover an edge case, but it doesn’t always go deep into the underlying problem, so you think you end up with a fix, where it is just an ugly patch and you don’t understand the code. Ultimately, you still need a senior dev to tell you what good code practices are. I spend more time debugging than writing code, so tests are even more important.
Tam Hanna:
At Tamoggemon Holdings, we currently use AI systems mainly for menial tasks. Using them to write stock correspondence (think cover letters, etc.) has shown to be a significant performance booster, allowing us to refocus on more productive tasks. As for line work (EE or SW), we – so far – have not seen the systems as a valid replacement to classic manual work.
Rainer Stropek:
After gaining extensive experience with modern AI tools, I can’t imagine my daily work as a developer without their support. My productivity has noticeably increased because I have consistently aligned my entire workflow around collaboration with AI. This goes far beyond classic code completion: autocomplete suggestions are convenient but often too generic and sometimes break my flow. Chat agents, by default, start every conversation from scratch. To work efficiently with them, one must formulate complete, consistent requirements in the prompt, prompt context, document the architecture, establish coding guidelines, and provide meaningful test data with expected results. This level of diligence would be advisable anyway; working with AI makes it essential.
Spec-Driven Development instead of Vibe Coding
Many developers underestimate prompting and context management. A few buzzwords are only enough as long as the goal remains vague. As soon as I face concrete customer requirements, I rely on Spec-Driven Development:
- I invest significant time in detailing the requirements.
- The AI questions and discusses the specification with me.
- Only once a sufficient level of maturity is reached do I let the AI implement the solution and review the result.
It’s crucial to create clarity before I let the AI write code.
From Coder to AI Orchestrator
My role is shifting. Instead of primarily writing code, I define work packages that I delegate to AI agents. This is similar to delegating to human team members. I see my future in the role of a product developer with a strong focus on requirements engineering and software architecture – structuring complex requirements in a way that makes them executable by AIs.
Limitations of Today’s AI Systems (especially in large projects)
Despite larger context windows and advanced retrieval (e.g., using MCP servers or function tools integrated in IDEs), AI still lacks a holistic overview of large projects. Humans remain responsible for slicing and documenting tasks so they can be worked on without requiring knowledge of the entire project. If this is done successfully, project size becomes almost irrelevant to the use of AI.
What Companies Need to Do Now
The tool landscape is evolving in months, not years. Instead of committing to a single tool long-term, companies should:
- Allocate budgets and create space for teams to experiment with various AI tools.
- Deploy pilot groups to quickly gain hands-on experience.
- Embrace usage-based pricing models and make their cost-benefit ratio transparent.
From my perspective, those who don’t start building practical experience now risk losing competitiveness. AI is no longer just a nice-to-have add-on – it is fundamentally changing the way we develop software. Those who ignore these new ways of working risk losing productivity and, in the medium term, competitiveness. Now is the time to sharpen specifications, rethink roles, and encourage experimental team setups.
Christian Weyer:
“Never trust a study you didn’t fake yourself” 😉.
Just kidding, of course.
But seriously: At Thinktecture, we’ve seen an unprecedented productivity boost across the team. Personally, I feel significantly more creative – which directly translates into being faster and producing better results.
The key? I don’t let AI tools disrupt my natural flow. Instead, I deliberately configure them to fit my individual thinking and working style. Tools like GitHub Copilot, Windsurf, Cursor, or Cline all offer great ways to customize the experience with your own guardrails.
Maybe many developers don’t yet fully leverage these configuration options – or don’t even know they exist. Used right, these tools amplify productivity instead of hindering it.
Veikko Krypczyk:
In my experience, artificial intelligence can be meaningfully applied throughout all phases of the software development process – from early ideation and UI design to architectural decisions and the implementation of complex algorithms. AI is by no means flawless, but it acts as a virtual work partner that can complete many tasks faster, more diversely, and sometimes even more creatively than would be possible alone.
The actual productivity gain strongly depends on two key factors: the quality of the prompts and the critical evaluation of the generated content. Those who can formulate clearly and have solid domain knowledge will greatly benefit from AI tools – whether it’s generating boilerplate code, writing test cases, supporting refactoring, or systematically exploring technical options.
Of course, AI outputs should never be accepted without reflection. It remains essential for developers to understand, question, and, if necessary, improve the generated suggestions. Domain expertise is not replaced by AI – quite the opposite: it becomes even more crucial to ensure the quality of the outcomes.
My conclusion: when used properly, AI enhances efficiency and broadens perspectives – both individually and in team processes. I find working with AI tools inspiring, more efficient, and often more focused, as they help offload routine work and spark creative thinking. I only experience a loss in productivity when AI is treated as an autopilot rather than as a co-pilot.
