A challenge with this kind of study is that coding agents (Claude Code, OpenAI Codex) only started working really well in late November, which for most people meant early January due to the December break.
General agents (OpenClaw, Anthropic Copilot, ChatGPT "Work") started working even later than that.
This category of software may have a much more meaningful impact on work than the mostly-chat systems we were using from 2022-2025.
Studies that mainly focus on 2022 to end of 2025 might be missing out on a material uptick in capabilities.
Anecdotally, I (along with the rest of my team) got laid off from a big tech company at the end of January. The stated reason was "AI", although I think as we all know the real reason was "we overhired in 2022". I managed to get a job by April without putting in a lot of work, though (mostly just listened to recruiters until something hit my fancy). My work experience is good, but I don't know if it's so good that I would be immune to market effects. The company that hired me is still hiring other software developers, and I was told that it took them a long time to find someone with my qualifications. (We use Claude, although so far I haven't seen a lot of AI psychosis like I have in other places.. that was also a big filter in my job search). Long story short, I think narrative of job loss is way overblown. It's more doom trolling from anthropic and openAI and their mouth pieces as far as I can tell.
It's so early game, is the real problem. My experience so far, has been that it's barely a junior dev. I've met so many in my career that think reading stackoverflow, or watching a youtube video mysteriously makes them an expert. AI reminds me of this sort.
Well anyone can use (prior to AI) a simple linter and learning to code isn't that big a deal. It's learning the pitfalls, the traps, that's the issue. And so far Opus just seems to fall into them again and again. I guess the best way to put it, is that it's not an architect. I sees no big picture, and that's not really a surprise with (compared to a human) an incredibly small context window. When I'm on a project, or working with a codebase, I often have years of "context window". And I have a career of "don't do this" context window.
So what I wonder is, will this be resolved? Will that awareness of larger scope be solved? If that happens, we'll be in another ballpark of competency.
Some companies have massive codebases. Are these companies slowly gaining rot in those codebases, a swiss cheese effect, which eventually will result in collapse? Because I've worked where a bad hire had just this effect over time. And what I worry about isn't using Claude to speed one up, it's the DEV that uses Claude and just "meh" and submits because it passes regression + other tests, and then a manager or code reviewer uses Claude and "meh" because it's a pass too.
I get the point having read much the same from Tesla (and fans) regarding self driving cars that still haven't done half the things that Musk said was just around the corner pending regulators a decade ago and repeatedly since then.
And myself I keep making comparisons between AI and the progress in 90s video games where every minor improvement got called "photo realistic" and then forgotten with the next game engine: https://archive.org/details/nextgen-issue-26
So I'm not gonna say "this is it" when the software quality really matters, and I absolutely won't speak to progress (or lack of it) outside of software.
But I will say "you can look around and easily see small businesses using AI to generate posters, quite a lot of small business software and websites are in the same category: the mistakes are real but increasingly don't matter".
I’m probably illustrating your point but as a FSD fan it really got ”good enough” recently with version 14. The tipping point was suddenly, much more often than not, it can drive end to end from start (my garage) to finish (parked at destination) with no interventions. I can text and watch videos on my phone and as long as I glance up once a minute, it doesn’t complain.
Handling highway driving with lane changes was great when it got there years ago, but just in the last year or so it has gone from a nice to have to “from now on I will never buy a car that can’t do this”.
AI has hit some milestones for replacing work as well. There’s still many more to go and maybe some of them will never get hit (much like I don’t think a coast to coast drive with zero interventions during winter conditions is ever going to happen) but there are points at which it forever meaningfully changes some field of work. I think it’s there for writing code.
>the mistakes are real but increasingly don't matter...
I think it would start to matter once again. People will get fed up of AI posters and art. I think they already are...and once some threshold is crossed, the business won't dare to use AI generated assets/designs.
Turns out humans are much better at recognizing patterns in stuff that is generated ONLY using patterns from human generated content.
> People will get fed up of AI posters and art. I think they already are
Agreed, but will this look like a meme/fashion cycle? If so, re-prompt each year with a different look. Yes, there are still issues here, a friend found an image he was amazed was AI generated, but to me it was obviously so, so I showed him a screenshot of ChatGPT making something just it and included my prompt:
create image: hand drawing of cute springer spaniel puppy looking sideways, various geometric shapes drawn in layer behind and in front of the puppy, all done in style of 7 year old using crayons with mediocre colouring-in skills
As I said to them:
yeah, the line thickness feels AI, to me, the bad colouring-in scribbles feel like just the art style it was propmpted with
it's like: it gets the big picture of the composition, and it knows how to colour in badly, but it doesn't know how to draw a dog as badly as the colouring in
> Turns out humans are much better at recognizing patterns in stuff that is generated ONLY using patterns from human generated content.
We're better at recognising patterns full stop. All biological brains are, and needed to be better than the current state of the art in machine learning because if a living organism was as poor at learning patterns as the SotA in machine learning, the organism would starve to death before being able to pick up anything and eat it.
AI also has a second disadvantage, because there are so few models: the laziest of ChatGPT "thinkpiece" blog posts being everywhere is hard to miss, and 5000 fake bloggers all prompting the same model with "find biggest news story of today and write a blog post about it in a way that maximises my ad revenue" will get 5000 almost identical posts. This will remain true while each instance of the most commonly used AI fail to talk to each other in a way that at least mimics them collectively getting bored with writing the same thing 5000 times, it does not depend on e.g. quality.
I just spoke to a fried who is a headhunter and who's been trying to automate his processes for a while (he likes to fiddle and certainly has skills, but he's not an engineer). He kept trying, but it just wasn't good enough.
Now he said with GPT Work and Sol, it worked, but the key point is: all of it suddenly worked.
The problem was one of reliability, of handling edge cases. All previous attempts / model-harness-combinations were too brittle and needed too much observation and fiddling - cheaper to do it yourself.
Now he says "I don't know why I would ever hire a recruiter [the folks doing the cold outreach] again. I can focus on the candidate screening and acquiring projects, everything else is fully automated".
This doesn't come from an engineer or an AI lab, but a technically inclined power user, and I think this is where things get interesting.
Then it just becomes a new baseline (everyone have access to the same LLMs), and recruiting moves up the philosophical ladder where human can add more value. What will it be? I don't know, I'm not a recruiter.
Again I've heard this since 2022 when gpt3.5 came out.
This is like microprocessors in the 80s. Sure they double in capability every 18 months but the start is so pathetic it will be 30 years before they are good enough for everyday tasks.
It seems to be true this time though; I have observed it myself and heard it from several experienced developers I personally know and respect. It feels like some threshold was crossed with Opus 4.5 and Gpt 5.3, where the models are now able to reliably solve certain classes of problems that were previously unreliable.
Time will tell of course, and it’s early, but inflection points do exist with progress.
Thing is. You can find an extremely similar paragraph written about Claude 4.x or some equivalent gpt. And simultaneously, many people expressing their frustration and the shortcomings of <insert any model>
“But it’s different this time” - several people, several times over the last couple of years.
This is not at all a dig at you, I’m very sorry if it reads that way. My point is these things only get truly better in anecdotes. The ways in which they fail is yet to change. Just yesterday I had gpt 5.3 generate completely awful code for the Cinema 4D Python API. Also an anecdote. But for all of the people saying they are truly intelligent and truly reason, they still make obvious mistakes, write around problems, fail entirely at architectural decisions, fail at random, generate FAR too much code.
And no amount of harnesses, methodologies, loops make much of a difference. If you listen to people on the internet they say it’s all working. You listen to people on the job and they mostly say it’s creating tech debt and a review bottleneck. Also burnout, so much burnout.
I think LLMs are mediocre. I think it’s fine they’re mediocre. You can work with low expectations. But the hype cycles are so tiresome.
I really don't think that's how it works. Smart, experienced developers who thought coding agents were junk for most of 2025 and think they're useful now in 2026 are not saying that because they got "worn down over time".
It tends to be when the training data wanders into their area of expertise temporarily and they go “OMG, they hype is real. I was so wrong” and then a few releases later they’re on the train and furious that the skills in their domain space have not just stopped improving, but regressed. Cue someone else in a different part of the world starting the same cycle.
Meanwhile the guy who leaned in a year ago and gave up reading the output is beginning to see work grind to a halt and throwing more agents at it is increasingly not working.
You can see these tropes all over social media near constantly.
I didn’t start using Claude Code until late 2025. Prior to that I would use ChatGPT to give me snippets of code but I was still doing most of the actual code writing. Coworkers told me in late 2025 about how they hadn’t written a line of code in “months” and just use Claude Code/agentic “whatever” so I tried out Claude Code and was pleasantly surprised. It is passable to have entire apps written by LLMs (I’ve made several that I otherwise never would have had the time to create by hand), but I wouldn’t say maintainable or easily extendable. It’s hard to be specific, but there’s something about LLM code that doesn’t look “natural”, and I’m not talking about the excessive use of comments in code. The code itself is unnatural. Functional, but unnatural. I wouldn’t want to suddenly lose LLMs and have to read through and understand and continue enhancing a codebase created by an LLM.
For me it feels a lot like generated images or video. I've made lots of things now, but those that are 100% LLM written "work" but are uncanny, weird and the details are wrong everywhere you care to look in detail.
I was getting useful coding work done with GPT 3.5. I think devs saying "the models are finally good enough" this year are just trying to save face from their own previous irrational denials.
Useful, yes, sometimes, but it wasn't fully automated "Here's our JIRA board URL, fix everything that's rated 1-3 story points and in the current sprint".
Nobody was saying coding agents started working in 2023 or 2024, because the category was defined by Claude Code which was first released in February 2025.
Claude 4.5 was it (nov 2025?), without a doubt. It went from frequent hallucinations to highly usable with much less garbage output. If you were making demos of AI tools around this time your demo/pitch/product was saved and you probably looked like a genius.
I haven't. Around the start of 2026 is pretty widely mentioned as when they went from "this is broken slop" to "huh this is actually 90% what I would have written", which matches my experience.
The quality of the output is so variable. It depends on the model, “effort level”, prompting, probably even the programming language/app functionality, and libraries involved. For example, I find LLMs are best at making simple web apps. These web apps, while simple, would still take a senior engineer perhaps a week or two to create, but LLMs can spit them out inside of an hour. Conversely, LLMs struggle with things like Docker or local model stuff. Parallelization of code is a mixed bag. In these areas I think it often would have been faster for me to write the thing by hand.
"unless you're content with producing low quality work." - With the right guiding hand, it is a productivity multiplier without compromising quality. As a fully autonomous developer, it is a disaster.
> With the right guiding hand, it is a productivity multiplier without compromising quality
This just reads like another variation of “it’s the user not the tool,” which is just endless runway for always blaming people and never acknowledging the limitations of LLM’s.
I’d be curious to hear how the recipients of your work enabled by the “productivity multiplier” feel about the quality.
Anecdotally I'm seeing a lot more recruiter activity/interest now than this time last year.
But it seems more correlated with hype-cycle-stage than anything else. Right now a lot of founders seem to be convincing a lot of VCs that they can make $LOTS by replacing/changing $BIG_INDUSTRY/$BIG_PRODUCT with an agent-first blah blah replacement, and then using that money to hire more people to manage/execute/coordinate the coding agents...
Last year, by comparison, there seemed to be a mood of "software will stay the same but will require less people" while right now there's a lot of hype around "we can build different types of software or build it in different ways" and those early-stage things are in growth-mode. That guarantees nothing about how many people they'd need in the future, or their success at all, ofc.
The news that I'm getting from contacts in non-startup-land is a bit different - still layoff threats. Still pressure to use AI tools more. Mixed confidence on whether or not longer-running "agent" modes are that much more effective-without-breaking-things in legacy code if not used with care.
However, companies have been using AI as an excuse for layoffs since well before January 2026, which corroborates the study's conclusion. (Source: https://layoffs.fyi/ai-layoffs/) There is certainly an uptick starting 2026, but that could be explained either by AI actually causing more layoffs, or by AI becoming an even better excuse for layoffs.
This isn’t the first study showing this though. It’s pretty simple, programmers and IT were severely overhired during the pandemic, there are massive job losses now, and it’s easy to blame AI when in reality there are a lot of economic factors and AI isn’t increasing productivity as much as anyone would think.
Maybe the future will change that for very specific things, but I think people should be learning and preparing for that, which isn’t any different than what everyone has been told in every job market since the start of the Industrial Revolution.
I personally hope that AI continues not to result in a noticeable negative impact on employment and that pandemic over-hiring turns out to be the major factor for all of the layoffs.
I'm nervous that the studies which show that so far don't seem to be taking the 2026 improvements in coding and general agents into account.
What the heck would I be "stealth-marketing" here?
It's genuine concern. I do not want to live in a dystopia where AI results in mass unemployment. That would suck, even for the people who manage to stay employed.
> What the heck would I be "stealth-marketing" here?
Cynically, "thought-leaderishness".
I've been spending a lot of my time these days outlining why we can't "just make an agent for it" to CEOs who read blogs like yours. They can't distinguish a production system from a quick HTML tool from a guy whose job doesn't depend on it working.
One of the goals of my blog is to help CEOs who read it not make stupid decisions. I aim to be a counter to the breathless LinkedIn hype they are exposed to everywhere else.
>programmers and IT were severely overhired during the pandemic
1) I hesitate to believe that losses were disproportionately technical roles as opposed to administrative.
2) Over-hired by what metric? It's well known that hiring never fully recovered after the GFC; was the recruitment post-pandemic just bringing us to parity with where we had been 20 years earlier?
Not to say that I disagree with your following point. The AI overspending and the layoff cost-cutting are not in a direct causal relationship; both are rather symptoms of a common corporate pathology.
This. Also I'm finding out that, after being blown away by agent mode lately, non-agent mode still kind of sucks across frontier models. Using GPT and Gemini in non-agent mode is asking for inaccurate information confidently presented as the truth. Turning on agent mode fixed a lot of that for me.
I think it's because of the lack of feedback. Humans also can't do much without feedback. E.g. I doubt most people could write 100 lines of code that works first time without even compiling it once.
For whatever anecdotal evidence it's worth - that has been my experience as well. For the first time last December I noticed the harnesses performing like actual workers.
Everything impressive has happened in the last six months.
Any research on the impact of AI would have been lagging indicators. It's not the researchers' fault[0], but the nature of a field moving at neck breaking speed. Remember there was a paper saying programmers were 20% slower with AI?
That early 2025 METR study was particularly interesting because participants self-evaluated themselves as 20% faster, but the measurements showed they were actually 19% slower.
All the reports of productivity since then are self-reported, or using questionable measures such as SLOC and PRs, so it’s reasonable to say that productivity improvements are still unknown.
Unfortunately, METR hasn’t been able to replicate the study because they couldn’t find enough willing participants.
And this is why the labs cannot just "stop training and become profitable". I can't imagine they would like it if studies like this will actually become credible.
"Move fast like a blur so people can't see that you have no clothes"
Well, in addition to that you also have to consider that companies are now paying (increased) API pricing. It would be an understatement to say that my clients in the F100 range are skeptical at best regarding the gains they’ve seen compared to the costs.
This has led to many of them instilling dollar limits or demanding proof of increased productivity (not just output) with the implication being if you don’t provide value with it it’s getting taken away.
So that is to say, if they aren’t happy with the price now, how will they feel when it goes up again compared to just keeping a certain headcount?
Oh wow. You just hit something there. There are government programs for R&D where I live. Grants. Tax credits. This sort of thing. I wonder if people are trying to expense to those programs too.
When I was a teenager, a friend had an old gas guzzler from the 70s. I live in a rural area. One time, my car broken, he drove to pick me up to go to College.
This cost him an extra $40, in today's dollars. No, I'm not joking. That thing ate gas like a dry camel drinks water.
This is what Fabel5 feels like. Crazy expensive. 10 minutes work pulled almost $80 is usage credits yesterday. I'd be exceptionally skeptical too, on costs, if I still had the DEV I had last week, but they were also eating that kind of cash on a very-improved, but still used as a linter.
For $200+/hr, or ~$400k/year, I'd want to see a tripling of output at least. In a lot of US markets, you can hire 3 junior devs for that.
Yes, there are cheaper options. Opus, etc. But it's really over-priced, and frankly I think the real gold now is making open models fully functional. Anyone predicating their business upon tie-in with the big boys is just going to fail, hard.
>This has led to many of them instilling dollar limits or demanding proof of increased productivity (not just output)
They should have done that from the beginning - demanding proof of increased productivity - if that was their goal. otherwise they were not using their brains well enough.
And you doubly don't want to work with them, first because they confused output with productivity at first. and second, because they're parroting the productivity metric.
You only need one guess for whose pockets the productivity benefits go into.
Recently poked around the job market to see what I qualify for in this day and age. Working as a solo builder in my org I would say that I have done enough in the last 18 months to consider myself “with it”.
What I found was pretty brutal. Companies asking for 4 years of agentic AI experience… pardon?
Then it hit me.
Oh they are all making shit up now and have no bar that anyone can hit because they are believing in the hype without understanding the fundamentals.
GREAT. Even as I climb the AI-Native ranks, I apparently am unqualified for any AI-Native job.
If decision-makers put up a front of recruiters and talent acquisition "specialists", don't they send a very explicit message that going past those is unwelcome and won't be considered?
Just in case, because a lot of people don't know this... When a company lists job requirements they aren't really requirements. Don't skip a job because it says you need X years of Y but you only have X-1.
They're basically writing down a wish list. They don't expect to get it or necessarily even care that much about some of the points.
Also "X years of experience" isn't really asking for literal years. It's a proxy for skill. They mean "as good as the average person who has been doing this for X years". If you're really good at it and can demonstrate it, that's good enough.
> Companies asking for 4 years of agentic AI experience… pardon?
Not that I am trying to excuse it, but this is not a new thing, nor specific to AI.
Job listings that ask for X years of experience where X years is sometimes literally longer than the technology has even existed has been a staple complaint of developers over my entire career, and I'm old af.
A 10x engineer only needs about five months of experience.
So, leave college/uni with your "Desmond" (1) in comparative pornography in Feb 2026, buy a PC/Apple and by now you will be writing Windows Entra 2027 on your own.
bro, tech hr were asking 6 to 8 years rails experience before dhh (rails creator) was even born.
This has been almost a meme on hacker news for some time.
You can google it via hn dot algolia dot com by using the right keywords.
Of course, i exaggerated it a bit, just like a lot of startups and vcs pimp their stuff, just that they do it much more, and they do it for money, while my mine was for fun. ha ha ha.
Organizational inertia is a real thing. There are still fortune 500 companies with internal bans on AI. A lot of the answer to "how much impact has AI had" comes down to "how much have we even attempted?"
In my workplace, we're going to decline to renew some software subscriptions because a non-programmer vibe-coded their replacement in a week.
The impacts are here, they're just not evenly distributed yet.
> There are still fortune 500 companies with internal bans on AI.
And there probably always will be.
When the choices are "hand all of our highly sensitive internal data over to one of several other companies, all of which have questionable financials and very cozy relationships with adtech" or "invest in a whole bunch of expensive GPU servers plus internal talent to run our own models", vs "keep on doing what we've been doing, which is still working just fine", why would a non-tech Fortune 500 company choose either of the former options?
> In my workplace, we're going to decline to renew some software subscriptions because a non-programmer vibe-coded their replacement in a week.
The impacts are here, they're just not evenly distributed yet.
Interesting to see the impact in the long term when battle tested software gets replaced with vibecoded variants by non-programmers. Does it increase data breaches or quality actually goes up?
I think Sturgeon's law would tell us that everything will stay about the same.
But in reality, a lot of corporate software exists just because there are plenty of companies who are afraid of owning code. They don't want to maintain any in-house coding skills, and therefore are willing to buy literally any vaguely-relevant CRUD app that the manager heard about at the conference. I don't think replacing that class of software with vibe coded alternatives will be any worse, because the bar is starting on the floor.
There are entire software categories that consist entirely of code that is only one or two evolutionary steps away from some engineer's spreadsheet originally written in 1995. One fine example I work with has changed its backend database 3 times in the past 4 years. Their most recent decision to use mongodb came with the questionable decision to store json as a raw string literals complete with bizarre escaping inside a database literally designed to store json-shaped-objects.
I don't think Opus could store data that poorly, even if the end user prompting it didn't know what they were doing.
To me, this is inline w the book BULLSHIT JOBS, and that class of job that was really like a few hours a week but 40 hrs pay. That type of job should be automated and the person removed. The exception is going to the person who complained to management that it’s a 2 hr a week job…. Give me more work.
Employees have no incentive to meaningfully implement AI to increase productivity, and if they do so, they have no reason to share it.
If AI means job cuts and not using AI means job cuts but no one really tracks AI impact that means performative adoption of AI is safest, and real gains are to be sandbagged as innate magic hand waving.
At my work I'm one of the few who says "I made this with Claude" and the near impossibility of using AI with internal email etc for security reasons means AI use is one-shot wonder oriented (for me, in my experience).
If AI usage was incentived with actual bonuses and praise it might go over better. So far I haven't seen that. Its just implicit threats.
Yes, I’ve found my coworkers won’t admit they had AI write their code in any sort of group setting yet they’ve all admitted it in private. The implication seems to be if AI is writing your code you’re lazy/incompetent/bad/not working anywhere near 40 hours/week. I for one would hate for our bosses to figure out we do probably ~16 hours of actual work per week. But we all “get our stuff done” (thanks to AI).
I don't feel like reading an article that will probably be out of date in 6 months, but from what I've seen, if agents keep improving at this rate, 80% of SWEs are going to be looking for new careers in 5 years.
Probably both. We were already hitting limits in terms of finding software that could generate returns; without public funding or enormous regulation the possibility of finding new jobs with a degree is lower than it's been in a while.
Seems like all companies think that their products are good enough and can’t offer more, as they always want to remove people instead of offering better and bigger products.
Prior to the weaving loom and sewing machines, a factory might be able to make like 20 t-shirts a day with 50 workers. After mass production, factories generally employ the same amount of workers, but people aren't hand-sewing things. Instead roughly 50 people are producing thousands of tshirts a day leveraging giant machines.
Most of HN recognized the "We're firing people because AI makes people efficient" as one of the stupidest sales pitches ever and the CEOs that fell for it are just poorly ran companies that outed themselves.
AI is just another cycle in technology that is genuinely useful. The companies that are going to jump the gap are those that are hiring to use this new skill. If 10 workers pre-AI yields you 10x, and post AI yields you 100x, you don't cut down to 1 worker so you can keep delivering 10x. You invest, ruthlessly train, hire, and surge forward and leave your competition in the dust.
If there was 100x on the table for you, why weren't you already at 100x scale just with more headcount? That is the other side of this coin. Demand is a factor. Productivity goes up? Great, if there is demand to satiate that you can meet. I doubt that is the case otherwise you'd already have scaled to meet it if it were actually on the table for the taking if only you could output more volume.
The problem is that these two statements each have massive implications, so instead of treating these findings as point in time snapshots they are the whole ballgame and should be explored in depth.
A challenge with this kind of study is that coding agents (Claude Code, OpenAI Codex) only started working really well in late November, which for most people meant early January due to the December break.
General agents (OpenClaw, Anthropic Copilot, ChatGPT "Work") started working even later than that.
This category of software may have a much more meaningful impact on work than the mostly-chat systems we were using from 2022-2025.
Studies that mainly focus on 2022 to end of 2025 might be missing out on a material uptick in capabilities.
Anecdotally, I (along with the rest of my team) got laid off from a big tech company at the end of January. The stated reason was "AI", although I think as we all know the real reason was "we overhired in 2022". I managed to get a job by April without putting in a lot of work, though (mostly just listened to recruiters until something hit my fancy). My work experience is good, but I don't know if it's so good that I would be immune to market effects. The company that hired me is still hiring other software developers, and I was told that it took them a long time to find someone with my qualifications. (We use Claude, although so far I haven't seen a lot of AI psychosis like I have in other places.. that was also a big filter in my job search). Long story short, I think narrative of job loss is way overblown. It's more doom trolling from anthropic and openAI and their mouth pieces as far as I can tell.
It's so early game, is the real problem. My experience so far, has been that it's barely a junior dev. I've met so many in my career that think reading stackoverflow, or watching a youtube video mysteriously makes them an expert. AI reminds me of this sort.
Well anyone can use (prior to AI) a simple linter and learning to code isn't that big a deal. It's learning the pitfalls, the traps, that's the issue. And so far Opus just seems to fall into them again and again. I guess the best way to put it, is that it's not an architect. I sees no big picture, and that's not really a surprise with (compared to a human) an incredibly small context window. When I'm on a project, or working with a codebase, I often have years of "context window". And I have a career of "don't do this" context window.
So what I wonder is, will this be resolved? Will that awareness of larger scope be solved? If that happens, we'll be in another ballpark of competency.
Some companies have massive codebases. Are these companies slowly gaining rot in those codebases, a swiss cheese effect, which eventually will result in collapse? Because I've worked where a bad hire had just this effect over time. And what I worry about isn't using Claude to speed one up, it's the DEV that uses Claude and just "meh" and submits because it passes regression + other tests, and then a manager or code reviewer uses Claude and "meh" because it's a pass too.
> A challenge with this kind of study is that coding agents (Claude Code, OpenAI Codex) only started working really well in
2026? 5? 4? 3?
Heard this one way too many times.
I get the point having read much the same from Tesla (and fans) regarding self driving cars that still haven't done half the things that Musk said was just around the corner pending regulators a decade ago and repeatedly since then.
And myself I keep making comparisons between AI and the progress in 90s video games where every minor improvement got called "photo realistic" and then forgotten with the next game engine: https://archive.org/details/nextgen-issue-26
So I'm not gonna say "this is it" when the software quality really matters, and I absolutely won't speak to progress (or lack of it) outside of software.
But I will say "you can look around and easily see small businesses using AI to generate posters, quite a lot of small business software and websites are in the same category: the mistakes are real but increasingly don't matter".
I’m probably illustrating your point but as a FSD fan it really got ”good enough” recently with version 14. The tipping point was suddenly, much more often than not, it can drive end to end from start (my garage) to finish (parked at destination) with no interventions. I can text and watch videos on my phone and as long as I glance up once a minute, it doesn’t complain.
Handling highway driving with lane changes was great when it got there years ago, but just in the last year or so it has gone from a nice to have to “from now on I will never buy a car that can’t do this”.
AI has hit some milestones for replacing work as well. There’s still many more to go and maybe some of them will never get hit (much like I don’t think a coast to coast drive with zero interventions during winter conditions is ever going to happen) but there are points at which it forever meaningfully changes some field of work. I think it’s there for writing code.
>the mistakes are real but increasingly don't matter...
I think it would start to matter once again. People will get fed up of AI posters and art. I think they already are...and once some threshold is crossed, the business won't dare to use AI generated assets/designs.
Turns out humans are much better at recognizing patterns in stuff that is generated ONLY using patterns from human generated content.
> People will get fed up of AI posters and art. I think they already are
Agreed, but will this look like a meme/fashion cycle? If so, re-prompt each year with a different look. Yes, there are still issues here, a friend found an image he was amazed was AI generated, but to me it was obviously so, so I showed him a screenshot of ChatGPT making something just it and included my prompt:
As I said to them: > Turns out humans are much better at recognizing patterns in stuff that is generated ONLY using patterns from human generated content.We're better at recognising patterns full stop. All biological brains are, and needed to be better than the current state of the art in machine learning because if a living organism was as poor at learning patterns as the SotA in machine learning, the organism would starve to death before being able to pick up anything and eat it.
AI also has a second disadvantage, because there are so few models: the laziest of ChatGPT "thinkpiece" blog posts being everywhere is hard to miss, and 5000 fake bloggers all prompting the same model with "find biggest news story of today and write a blog post about it in a way that maximises my ad revenue" will get 5000 almost identical posts. This will remain true while each instance of the most commonly used AI fail to talk to each other in a way that at least mimics them collectively getting bored with writing the same thing 5000 times, it does not depend on e.g. quality.
Will? They already have.
I guess it's important who one hears this from.
I just spoke to a fried who is a headhunter and who's been trying to automate his processes for a while (he likes to fiddle and certainly has skills, but he's not an engineer). He kept trying, but it just wasn't good enough.
Now he said with GPT Work and Sol, it worked, but the key point is: all of it suddenly worked.
The problem was one of reliability, of handling edge cases. All previous attempts / model-harness-combinations were too brittle and needed too much observation and fiddling - cheaper to do it yourself.
Now he says "I don't know why I would ever hire a recruiter [the folks doing the cold outreach] again. I can focus on the candidate screening and acquiring projects, everything else is fully automated".
This doesn't come from an engineer or an AI lab, but a technically inclined power user, and I think this is where things get interesting.
Then it just becomes a new baseline (everyone have access to the same LLMs), and recruiting moves up the philosophical ladder where human can add more value. What will it be? I don't know, I'm not a recruiter.
Again I've heard this since 2022 when gpt3.5 came out.
This is like microprocessors in the 80s. Sure they double in capability every 18 months but the start is so pathetic it will be 30 years before they are good enough for everyday tasks.
It seems to be true this time though; I have observed it myself and heard it from several experienced developers I personally know and respect. It feels like some threshold was crossed with Opus 4.5 and Gpt 5.3, where the models are now able to reliably solve certain classes of problems that were previously unreliable.
Time will tell of course, and it’s early, but inflection points do exist with progress.
Thing is. You can find an extremely similar paragraph written about Claude 4.x or some equivalent gpt. And simultaneously, many people expressing their frustration and the shortcomings of <insert any model>
“But it’s different this time” - several people, several times over the last couple of years.
This is not at all a dig at you, I’m very sorry if it reads that way. My point is these things only get truly better in anecdotes. The ways in which they fail is yet to change. Just yesterday I had gpt 5.3 generate completely awful code for the Cinema 4D Python API. Also an anecdote. But for all of the people saying they are truly intelligent and truly reason, they still make obvious mistakes, write around problems, fail entirely at architectural decisions, fail at random, generate FAR too much code.
And no amount of harnesses, methodologies, loops make much of a difference. If you listen to people on the internet they say it’s all working. You listen to people on the job and they mostly say it’s creating tech debt and a review bottleneck. Also burnout, so much burnout.
I think LLMs are mediocre. I think it’s fine they’re mediocre. You can work with low expectations. But the hype cycles are so tiresome.
I wonder how much of it is real and how much of it is people just being worn down by the hype to the point they can't fight it anymore
Very smart people aren't immune to being worn down over time
I really don't think that's how it works. Smart, experienced developers who thought coding agents were junk for most of 2025 and think they're useful now in 2026 are not saying that because they got "worn down over time".
It tends to be when the training data wanders into their area of expertise temporarily and they go “OMG, they hype is real. I was so wrong” and then a few releases later they’re on the train and furious that the skills in their domain space have not just stopped improving, but regressed. Cue someone else in a different part of the world starting the same cycle.
Meanwhile the guy who leaned in a year ago and gave up reading the output is beginning to see work grind to a halt and throwing more agents at it is increasingly not working.
You can see these tropes all over social media near constantly.
As a smart, experienced developer who's getting worn down over time, I disagree.
I didn’t start using Claude Code until late 2025. Prior to that I would use ChatGPT to give me snippets of code but I was still doing most of the actual code writing. Coworkers told me in late 2025 about how they hadn’t written a line of code in “months” and just use Claude Code/agentic “whatever” so I tried out Claude Code and was pleasantly surprised. It is passable to have entire apps written by LLMs (I’ve made several that I otherwise never would have had the time to create by hand), but I wouldn’t say maintainable or easily extendable. It’s hard to be specific, but there’s something about LLM code that doesn’t look “natural”, and I’m not talking about the excessive use of comments in code. The code itself is unnatural. Functional, but unnatural. I wouldn’t want to suddenly lose LLMs and have to read through and understand and continue enhancing a codebase created by an LLM.
For me it feels a lot like generated images or video. I've made lots of things now, but those that are 100% LLM written "work" but are uncanny, weird and the details are wrong everywhere you care to look in detail.
I was getting useful coding work done with GPT 3.5. I think devs saying "the models are finally good enough" this year are just trying to save face from their own previous irrational denials.
Useful, yes, sometimes, but it wasn't fully automated "Here's our JIRA board URL, fix everything that's rated 1-3 story points and in the current sprint".
Now it is.
Perhaps the LLM companies need to start hiring true Scotsmen?
Nobody was saying coding agents started working in 2023 or 2024, because the category was defined by Claude Code which was first released in February 2025.
Claude 4.5 was it (nov 2025?), without a doubt. It went from frequent hallucinations to highly usable with much less garbage output. If you were making demos of AI tools around this time your demo/pitch/product was saved and you probably looked like a genius.
I haven't. Around the start of 2026 is pretty widely mentioned as when they went from "this is broken slop" to "huh this is actually 90% what I would have written", which matches my experience.
Yep, the goalposts just keep shifting. In reality: they still don't work well, unless you're content with producing low quality work.
This is the opposite of my experience since about February of this year.
The quality of the output is so variable. It depends on the model, “effort level”, prompting, probably even the programming language/app functionality, and libraries involved. For example, I find LLMs are best at making simple web apps. These web apps, while simple, would still take a senior engineer perhaps a week or two to create, but LLMs can spit them out inside of an hour. Conversely, LLMs struggle with things like Docker or local model stuff. Parallelization of code is a mixed bag. In these areas I think it often would have been faster for me to write the thing by hand.
"unless you're content with producing low quality work." - With the right guiding hand, it is a productivity multiplier without compromising quality. As a fully autonomous developer, it is a disaster.
> With the right guiding hand, it is a productivity multiplier without compromising quality
This just reads like another variation of “it’s the user not the tool,” which is just endless runway for always blaming people and never acknowledging the limitations of LLM’s.
I’d be curious to hear how the recipients of your work enabled by the “productivity multiplier” feel about the quality.
What kind of work are you doing and what do you consider to be quality or not?
Of course don’t let me assume, maybe you have a higher quality disproof for the Jacobian conjecture you could share with the class.
Anecdotally I'm seeing a lot more recruiter activity/interest now than this time last year.
But it seems more correlated with hype-cycle-stage than anything else. Right now a lot of founders seem to be convincing a lot of VCs that they can make $LOTS by replacing/changing $BIG_INDUSTRY/$BIG_PRODUCT with an agent-first blah blah replacement, and then using that money to hire more people to manage/execute/coordinate the coding agents...
Last year, by comparison, there seemed to be a mood of "software will stay the same but will require less people" while right now there's a lot of hype around "we can build different types of software or build it in different ways" and those early-stage things are in growth-mode. That guarantees nothing about how many people they'd need in the future, or their success at all, ofc.
The news that I'm getting from contacts in non-startup-land is a bit different - still layoff threats. Still pressure to use AI tools more. Mixed confidence on whether or not longer-running "agent" modes are that much more effective-without-breaking-things in legacy code if not used with care.
However, companies have been using AI as an excuse for layoffs since well before January 2026, which corroborates the study's conclusion. (Source: https://layoffs.fyi/ai-layoffs/) There is certainly an uptick starting 2026, but that could be explained either by AI actually causing more layoffs, or by AI becoming an even better excuse for layoffs.
This isn’t the first study showing this though. It’s pretty simple, programmers and IT were severely overhired during the pandemic, there are massive job losses now, and it’s easy to blame AI when in reality there are a lot of economic factors and AI isn’t increasing productivity as much as anyone would think.
Maybe the future will change that for very specific things, but I think people should be learning and preparing for that, which isn’t any different than what everyone has been told in every job market since the start of the Industrial Revolution.
I personally hope that AI continues not to result in a noticeable negative impact on employment and that pandemic over-hiring turns out to be the major factor for all of the layoffs.
I'm nervous that the studies which show that so far don't seem to be taking the 2026 improvements in coding and general agents into account.
Is this genuine concern or is it stealth-marketing? It's hard to tell when someone is so publicly benefiting off the hype.
What the heck would I be "stealth-marketing" here?
It's genuine concern. I do not want to live in a dystopia where AI results in mass unemployment. That would suck, even for the people who manage to stay employed.
I trust you when you say that.
> What the heck would I be "stealth-marketing" here?
Cynically, "thought-leaderishness".
I've been spending a lot of my time these days outlining why we can't "just make an agent for it" to CEOs who read blogs like yours. They can't distinguish a production system from a quick HTML tool from a guy whose job doesn't depend on it working.
One of the goals of my blog is to help CEOs who read it not make stupid decisions. I aim to be a counter to the breathless LinkedIn hype they are exposed to everywhere else.
>programmers and IT were severely overhired during the pandemic
1) I hesitate to believe that losses were disproportionately technical roles as opposed to administrative.
2) Over-hired by what metric? It's well known that hiring never fully recovered after the GFC; was the recruitment post-pandemic just bringing us to parity with where we had been 20 years earlier?
Not to say that I disagree with your following point. The AI overspending and the layoff cost-cutting are not in a direct causal relationship; both are rather symptoms of a common corporate pathology.
This. Also I'm finding out that, after being blown away by agent mode lately, non-agent mode still kind of sucks across frontier models. Using GPT and Gemini in non-agent mode is asking for inaccurate information confidently presented as the truth. Turning on agent mode fixed a lot of that for me.
I think it's because of the lack of feedback. Humans also can't do much without feedback. E.g. I doubt most people could write 100 lines of code that works first time without even compiling it once.
For whatever anecdotal evidence it's worth - that has been my experience as well. For the first time last December I noticed the harnesses performing like actual workers.
Everything impressive has happened in the last six months.
It does feel like we are in a transition period, and its not clear what conclusions we can draw about any sort of "steady state" yet.
Any research on the impact of AI would have been lagging indicators. It's not the researchers' fault[0], but the nature of a field moving at neck breaking speed. Remember there was a paper saying programmers were 20% slower with AI?
[0]: well...
That early 2025 METR study was particularly interesting because participants self-evaluated themselves as 20% faster, but the measurements showed they were actually 19% slower.
All the reports of productivity since then are self-reported, or using questionable measures such as SLOC and PRs, so it’s reasonable to say that productivity improvements are still unknown.
Unfortunately, METR hasn’t been able to replicate the study because they couldn’t find enough willing participants.
Well… what
And this is why the labs cannot just "stop training and become profitable". I can't imagine they would like it if studies like this will actually become credible.
"Move fast like a blur so people can't see that you have no clothes"
Bingo.
Well, in addition to that you also have to consider that companies are now paying (increased) API pricing. It would be an understatement to say that my clients in the F100 range are skeptical at best regarding the gains they’ve seen compared to the costs.
This has led to many of them instilling dollar limits or demanding proof of increased productivity (not just output) with the implication being if you don’t provide value with it it’s getting taken away.
So that is to say, if they aren’t happy with the price now, how will they feel when it goes up again compared to just keeping a certain headcount?
Oh wow. You just hit something there. There are government programs for R&D where I live. Grants. Tax credits. This sort of thing. I wonder if people are trying to expense to those programs too.
When I was a teenager, a friend had an old gas guzzler from the 70s. I live in a rural area. One time, my car broken, he drove to pick me up to go to College.
This cost him an extra $40, in today's dollars. No, I'm not joking. That thing ate gas like a dry camel drinks water.
This is what Fabel5 feels like. Crazy expensive. 10 minutes work pulled almost $80 is usage credits yesterday. I'd be exceptionally skeptical too, on costs, if I still had the DEV I had last week, but they were also eating that kind of cash on a very-improved, but still used as a linter.
For $200+/hr, or ~$400k/year, I'd want to see a tripling of output at least. In a lot of US markets, you can hire 3 junior devs for that.
Yes, there are cheaper options. Opus, etc. But it's really over-priced, and frankly I think the real gold now is making open models fully functional. Anyone predicating their business upon tie-in with the big boys is just going to fail, hard.
>This has led to many of them instilling dollar limits or demanding proof of increased productivity (not just output)
They should have done that from the beginning - demanding proof of increased productivity - if that was their goal. otherwise they were not using their brains well enough.
And you doubly don't want to work with them, first because they confused output with productivity at first. and second, because they're parroting the productivity metric.
You only need one guess for whose pockets the productivity benefits go into.
10 . 9 . 8 . 7 . 6 ...
99% of the AI product pitches I see here are for some kind of marketing tool. Its really sad
Recently poked around the job market to see what I qualify for in this day and age. Working as a solo builder in my org I would say that I have done enough in the last 18 months to consider myself “with it”.
What I found was pretty brutal. Companies asking for 4 years of agentic AI experience… pardon?
Then it hit me.
Oh they are all making shit up now and have no bar that anyone can hit because they are believing in the hype without understanding the fundamentals.
GREAT. Even as I climb the AI-Native ranks, I apparently am unqualified for any AI-Native job.
Use it in your favor.
You just have to get past the recruiter/talent acquisition where everyone else is getting auto-rejected. You should be doing that anyway.
If decision-makers put up a front of recruiters and talent acquisition "specialists", don't they send a very explicit message that going past those is unwelcome and won't be considered?
Just in case, because a lot of people don't know this... When a company lists job requirements they aren't really requirements. Don't skip a job because it says you need X years of Y but you only have X-1.
They're basically writing down a wish list. They don't expect to get it or necessarily even care that much about some of the points.
Also "X years of experience" isn't really asking for literal years. It's a proxy for skill. They mean "as good as the average person who has been doing this for X years". If you're really good at it and can demonstrate it, that's good enough.
Personally, I would avoid "ai-native" companies like the plague; they seem like places full of burnout and delusional expectations.
> Companies asking for 4 years of agentic AI experience… pardon?
Not that I am trying to excuse it, but this is not a new thing, nor specific to AI.
Job listings that ask for X years of experience where X years is sometimes literally longer than the technology has even existed has been a staple complaint of developers over my entire career, and I'm old af.
My favorite in this regard is this story: https://x.com/tiangolo/status/1281946592459853830?lang=en
Sebastián Ramírez seeing a job requiring 4 years of experience with FastAPI, the library he created 1.5 years before that posting.
A 10x engineer only needs about five months of experience.
So, leave college/uni with your "Desmond" (1) in comparative pornography in Feb 2026, buy a PC/Apple and by now you will be writing Windows Entra 2027 on your own.
Profit!
(1) Tutu - geddit!
bro, tech hr were asking 6 to 8 years rails experience before dhh (rails creator) was even born.
This has been almost a meme on hacker news for some time. You can google it via hn dot algolia dot com by using the right keywords.
Of course, i exaggerated it a bit, just like a lot of startups and vcs pimp their stuff, just that they do it much more, and they do it for money, while my mine was for fun. ha ha ha.
Wow, fuck.
Literally some minutes later, i scrolled down below my above comment.
And saw this one.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49053201
Which doesn't validate mine, but agrees with what I said.
Except that it was posted about one hour before mine.
go figure.
double wow. yet another one on the same lines, as a reply to the link i posted above.
Organizational inertia is a real thing. There are still fortune 500 companies with internal bans on AI. A lot of the answer to "how much impact has AI had" comes down to "how much have we even attempted?"
In my workplace, we're going to decline to renew some software subscriptions because a non-programmer vibe-coded their replacement in a week.
The impacts are here, they're just not evenly distributed yet.
> There are still fortune 500 companies with internal bans on AI.
And there probably always will be.
When the choices are "hand all of our highly sensitive internal data over to one of several other companies, all of which have questionable financials and very cozy relationships with adtech" or "invest in a whole bunch of expensive GPU servers plus internal talent to run our own models", vs "keep on doing what we've been doing, which is still working just fine", why would a non-tech Fortune 500 company choose either of the former options?
> In my workplace, we're going to decline to renew some software subscriptions because a non-programmer vibe-coded their replacement in a week. The impacts are here, they're just not evenly distributed yet.
Interesting to see the impact in the long term when battle tested software gets replaced with vibecoded variants by non-programmers. Does it increase data breaches or quality actually goes up?
I think Sturgeon's law would tell us that everything will stay about the same.
But in reality, a lot of corporate software exists just because there are plenty of companies who are afraid of owning code. They don't want to maintain any in-house coding skills, and therefore are willing to buy literally any vaguely-relevant CRUD app that the manager heard about at the conference. I don't think replacing that class of software with vibe coded alternatives will be any worse, because the bar is starting on the floor.
There are entire software categories that consist entirely of code that is only one or two evolutionary steps away from some engineer's spreadsheet originally written in 1995. One fine example I work with has changed its backend database 3 times in the past 4 years. Their most recent decision to use mongodb came with the questionable decision to store json as a raw string literals complete with bizarre escaping inside a database literally designed to store json-shaped-objects.
I don't think Opus could store data that poorly, even if the end user prompting it didn't know what they were doing.
To me, this is inline w the book BULLSHIT JOBS, and that class of job that was really like a few hours a week but 40 hrs pay. That type of job should be automated and the person removed. The exception is going to the person who complained to management that it’s a 2 hr a week job…. Give me more work.
> we're going to decline to renew some software subscriptions
Yeah, sure you are. Report back when it happens.
We got the thumbs up from management last week.
Cool! Which ones?
(Replacing overpriced garbageware with something I scraped together in 3 days is my jam. But the specifics matter a lot.)
The software which manages our instrument spec sheets, and the software which manages our field tech rounds.
Ok, are they cancelled yet?
The impact on job satisfaction for those with jobs will be negative too. People will be trapped in their positions, fearing to leave or move around.
I agree because it's already happening with me
Every job loss and suicide is a dollar in an AI investor’s pocket.
Employees have no incentive to meaningfully implement AI to increase productivity, and if they do so, they have no reason to share it.
If AI means job cuts and not using AI means job cuts but no one really tracks AI impact that means performative adoption of AI is safest, and real gains are to be sandbagged as innate magic hand waving.
At my work I'm one of the few who says "I made this with Claude" and the near impossibility of using AI with internal email etc for security reasons means AI use is one-shot wonder oriented (for me, in my experience).
If AI usage was incentived with actual bonuses and praise it might go over better. So far I haven't seen that. Its just implicit threats.
Yes, I’ve found my coworkers won’t admit they had AI write their code in any sort of group setting yet they’ve all admitted it in private. The implication seems to be if AI is writing your code you’re lazy/incompetent/bad/not working anywhere near 40 hours/week. I for one would hate for our bosses to figure out we do probably ~16 hours of actual work per week. But we all “get our stuff done” (thanks to AI).
I don't feel like reading an article that will probably be out of date in 6 months, but from what I've seen, if agents keep improving at this rate, 80% of SWEs are going to be looking for new careers in 5 years.
If my baby keeps growing at this rate, in 5 years she'll be as tall as the empire state building.
Or their career will just involve different tools and skills than they previously assumed
Probably both. We were already hitting limits in terms of finding software that could generate returns; without public funding or enormous regulation the possibility of finding new jobs with a degree is lower than it's been in a while.
Or the amount of software increases tremendously
Seems like all companies think that their products are good enough and can’t offer more, as they always want to remove people instead of offering better and bigger products.
I don't think most of the layoffs that have happened so far are about present-day AI. It's often an easy excuse though.
At some point your issue tracker or text editor is done. No need for it to automatically schedule your haircut as well.
Emacs is far from done. Scheduling things from it are already a feature, in the org-mode.
But the company that has a text editor that can read your mind is going to bankrupt you, as it is faster than typing
I'm surprised the layoffs worldwide hasn't produced more entrepreneurs building their own software product.
Most people simply do not want to be entrepreneurs
No one will use it.
> AI’s effects on overall employment is likely small, though a tough job market for new graduates may be partly due to AI.
This is a great opportunity.
There will be new jobs.
Related today:
The AI jobs apocalypse probably isn't coming anytime soon
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49047969
Prior to the weaving loom and sewing machines, a factory might be able to make like 20 t-shirts a day with 50 workers. After mass production, factories generally employ the same amount of workers, but people aren't hand-sewing things. Instead roughly 50 people are producing thousands of tshirts a day leveraging giant machines.
Most of HN recognized the "We're firing people because AI makes people efficient" as one of the stupidest sales pitches ever and the CEOs that fell for it are just poorly ran companies that outed themselves.
AI is just another cycle in technology that is genuinely useful. The companies that are going to jump the gap are those that are hiring to use this new skill. If 10 workers pre-AI yields you 10x, and post AI yields you 100x, you don't cut down to 1 worker so you can keep delivering 10x. You invest, ruthlessly train, hire, and surge forward and leave your competition in the dust.
If there was 100x on the table for you, why weren't you already at 100x scale just with more headcount? That is the other side of this coin. Demand is a factor. Productivity goes up? Great, if there is demand to satiate that you can meet. I doubt that is the case otherwise you'd already have scaled to meet it if it were actually on the table for the taking if only you could output more volume.
By now I feel I can write these articles:
- benefits of AI murky to slightly positive
- hiring impact limited except for junior level
The problem is that these two statements each have massive implications, so instead of treating these findings as point in time snapshots they are the whole ballgame and should be explored in depth.