Wednesday, 6th August 2025
No, AI is not Making Engineers 10x as Productive (via) Colton Voege on "curing your AI 10x engineer imposter syndrome".
There's a lot of rhetoric out there suggesting that if you can't 10x your productivity through tricks like running a dozen Claude Code instances at once you're falling behind. Colton's piece here is a pretty thoughtful exploration of why that likely isn't true. I found myself agreeing with quite a lot of this article.
I'm a pretty huge proponent for AI-assisted development, but I've never found those 10x claims convincing. I've estimated that LLMs make me 2-5x more productive on the parts of my job which involve typing code into a computer, which is itself a small portion of that I do as a software engineer.
That's not too far from this article's assumptions. From the article:
I wouldn't be surprised to learn AI helps many engineers do certain tasks 20-50% faster, but the nature of software bottlenecks mean this doesn't translate to a 20% productivity increase and certainly not a 10x increase.
I think that's an under-estimation - I suspect engineers that really know how to use this stuff effectively will get more than a 0.2x increase - but I do think all of the other stuff involved in building software makes the 10x thing unrealistic in most cases.
gpt-oss-120b is the most intelligent American open weights model, comes behind DeepSeek R1 and Qwen3 235B in intelligence but offers efficiency benefits [...]
We’re seeing the 120B beat o3-mini but come in behind o4-mini and o3. The 120B is the most intelligent model that can be run on a single H100 and the 20B is the most intelligent model that can be run on a consumer GPU. [...]
While the larger gpt-oss-120b does not come in above DeepSeek R1 0528’s score of 59 or Qwen3 235B 2507s score of 64, it is notable that it is significantly smaller in both total and active parameters than both of those models.
— Artificial Analysis, see also their updated leaderboard