It's research from a company that gains from selling said tools they researched. Why does it have to be repeated that this is a massive conflict of interests and until this "research" has been verified multiple times by parties with zero conflict of interests it's best to be highly skeptical of anything it claims?
This is up there with believing tobacco companies health "research" from the 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s.
Dude you falling for so obvious corpo-psyops is so sad. Tobacco companies literally published research that said cigarettes were dangerous too, that didn't stop them from lying to Congress and saying cigarettes weren't totally safe.
Some of you are the reason why there needs to be a new luddite movement (fun fact, the luddites were completely correct in their movements; they fought against oppressive factory owners that treated their fellow humans terrible, smashing the very same machines they used themselves. Entrepreneurs were literally ushering in a new hell on Earth where their factors were killing so many orphans (because many people refused to work in such places originally, until forced by dying in the streets or dying from their labor in such places) they had to ship the bodies of children across towns to not draw suspicion). Until the entrepreneurs started killing them and convincing the king reagent to kill them with the state, they had massive support. Support so high that when suspected luddites were escaping from the "police" you could hear entire towns cheering them on helping them escape).
People rightfully hate this stuff and you refuse to see, the evidence says it's terrible but hey let's still sell it anyway what's the worse that can happen?
Well, this is what Anthropic's CEO told Congress in 2023, the message was not quite "AI is just peachy": https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2023-07-26_-_...
Or here's his more recent statements on the potential disruption from AI: https://www.cnbc.com/2026/01/27/dario-amodei-warns-ai-cause-...
Anthropic is pretty much the only major frontier AI lab that keeps saying "AI is dangerous, we should proceed with caution." It sounds like you're in violent agreement.
If your stance is AI development should not be continued at all, well, the history of Luddites should tell you what happens when an economic force meets labor concerns in a Capitalistic world.
The genie is out of the bottle and there's no putting it back. Our only choices now are to figure out how to tame it, or YOLO it and FAFO.
> this is a massive conflict of interests
But people like that they aren't shying away from negative results and that builds some trust. Though let's not ignore that they're still suggesting AI + manual coding.
But honestly, this sample size is so small that we need larger studies. The results around what is effective and ineffective AI usage is a complete wash with n<8.
Also anyone else feel the paper is a bit sloppy?
I mean there's a bunch of minor things but Figure 17 (first fig in the appendix) is just kinda wild. I mean there's trivial ways to solve the glaring error. The more carefully you look at even just the figures in the paper the more you say "who the fuck wrote this?" I mean like how the fuck do you even generate Figure 12? The numbers align with the grids but boxes are shifted. And Figure 16 has experience levels shuffled for some reason. And then there are a hell of a lot more confusing stuff you'll see if you do more than a glance...
I mean, they're literally pointing out the negative effects of AI-assisted coding?
> We found that using AI assistance led to a statistically significant decrease in mastery. On a quiz that covered concepts they’d used just a few minutes before, participants in the AI group scored 17% lower than those who coded by hand, or the equivalent of nearly two letter grades. Using AI sped up the task slightly, but this didn’t reach the threshold of statistical significance.
This also echoes other research from a few years ago that had similar findings: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46822158