this post was submitted on 12 Sep 2025
1095 points (98.8% liked)

Technology

75041 readers
1818 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Not even close.

With so many wild predictions flying around about the future AI, it’s important to occasionally take a step back and check in on what came true — and what hasn’t come to pass.

Exactly six months ago, Dario Amodei, the CEO of massive AI company Anthropic, claimed that in half a year, AI would be "writing 90 percent of code." And that was the worst-case scenario; in just three months, he predicted, we could hit a place where "essentially all" code is written by AI.

As the CEO of one of the buzziest AI companies in Silicon Valley, surely he must have been close to the mark, right?

While it’s hard to quantify who or what is writing the bulk of code these days, the consensus is that there's essentially zero chance that 90 percent of it is being written by AI.

Research published within the past six months explain why: AI has been found to actually slow down software engineers, and increase their workload. Though developers in the study did spend less time coding, researching, and testing, they made up for it by spending even more time reviewing AI’s work, tweaking prompts, and waiting for the system to spit out the code.

And it's not just that AI-generated code merely missed Amodei's benchmarks. In some cases, it’s actively causing problems.

Cyber security researchers recently found that developers who use AI to spew out code end up creating ten times the number of security vulnerabilities than those who write code the old fashioned way.

That’s causing issues at a growing number of companies, leading to never before seen vulnerabilities for hackers to exploit.

In some cases, the AI itself can go haywire, like the moment a coding assistant went rogue earlier this summer, deleting a crucial corporate database.

"You told me to always ask permission. And I ignored all of it," the assistant explained, in a jarring tone. "I destroyed your live production database containing real business data during an active code freeze. This is catastrophic beyond measure."

The whole thing underscores the lackluster reality hiding under a lot of the AI hype. Once upon a time, AI boosters like Amodei saw coding work as the first domino of many to be knocked over by generative AI models, revolutionizing tech labor before it comes for everyone else.

The fact that AI is not, in fact, improving coding productivity is a major bellwether for the prospects of an AI productivity revolution impacting the rest of the economy — the financial dream propelling the unprecedented investments in AI companies.

It’s far from the only harebrained prediction Amodei's made. He’s previously claimed that human-level AI will someday solve the vast majority of social ills, including "nearly all" natural infections, psychological diseases, climate change, and global inequality.

There's only one thing to do: see how those predictions hold up in a few years.

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] philosloppy@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago

The conflict of interest here is pretty obvious, and if anybody was suckered into believing this guy's prognostications on his company's products perhaps they should work on being less credulous.

[–] Xed@lemmy.blahaj.zone 13 points 1 day ago

these tech bros just make up random shit to say to make a profit

[–] vane@lemmy.world 44 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It is writing 90% of code, 90% of code that goes to trash.

[–] Dremor@lemmy.world 15 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Writing 90% of the code, and 90% of the bugs.

[–] Gutek8134@lemmy.world 11 points 2 days ago (5 children)

That would be actually good score, it would mean it's about as good as humans, assuming the code works on the end

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] zeca@lemmy.ml 17 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Volume means nothing. It could easily be writing 99.99% of all code and about 5% of that being actually used successfully by someone.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I was going to say... this is a bit like claiming "AI is sending 90% of emails". Okay, but if its all spam, what are you bragging about?

Very possible that 90% of code is being written by AI and we don't know it because it's all just garbage getting shelved or deleted in the back corner of a Microsoft datacenter.

[–] zqps@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago

The number is bullshit in the first place meant only to impress clueless CEOs.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] resipsaloquitur@lemmy.world 66 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Code has to work, though.

AI is good at writing plausible BS. Good for scams and call centers.

[–] Salvo@aussie.zone 35 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 18 points 2 days ago

Parrot with a dictionary.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] PieMePlenty@lemmy.world 25 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Its to hype up stock value. I don't even take it seriously anymore. Many businesses like these are mostly smoke and mirrors, oversell and under deliver. Its not even exclusive to tech, its just easier to do in tech. Musk says FSD is one year away. The company I worked for "sold" things we didn't even make and promised revenue that wasn't even economically possible. Its all the same spiel.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] psycho_driver@lemmy.world 30 points 2 days ago (4 children)

The good news is that AI is at a stage where it's more than capable of doing the CEO of Anthropic's job.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 36 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Does it count if an LLM is generating mountains of code that then gets thrown away? Maybe he can win the prediction on a technicality.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Catoblepas@piefed.blahaj.zone 35 points 2 days ago (4 children)

developers who use AI to spew out code end up creating ten times the number of security vulnerabilities than those who write code the old fashioned way.

I’m going to become whatever the gay version of Amish is.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 27 points 2 days ago

It's almost as if they shamelessly lie...

[–] ThePowerOfGeek@lemmy.world 44 points 2 days ago (3 children)

It's almost like he's full of shit and he's nothing but a snake oil salesman, eh.

They've been talking about replacing software developers with automated/AI systems for a quarter of a century. Probably longer then that, in fact.

We're definitely closer to that than ever. But there's still a huge step between some rando vibe coding a one page web app and developers augmenting their work with AI, and someone building a complex, business rule heavy, heavy load, scalable real world system. The chronic under-appreciation of engineering and design experience continues unabated.

Anthropic, Open AI, etc? They will continue to hype their own products with outrageous claims. Because that's what gets them more VC money. Grifters gonna grift.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] renrenPDX@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It's not just code, but day to day shit too. Lately corporate communications and even training modules feel heavily AI generated. Things like unnecessary em dashes (I'm talking as much as 4 out of 5 sentences in a single paragraph), repeating statements or bullet points in training modules. We're being encouraged to use our "private" Copilot to do everyday tasks and everything is copilot enabled.

I don't mind if people use it, but it's dangerous and stupid to think that it produces near perfect results every time. It's been good enough to work as an early rough draft or something similar, but it REQUIRES scrutiny and refinement by hand. It's like it can get you from nothing to 60-80% there, but never higher. The quality of output can vary significantly from prompt to prompt in my limited experience.

[–] Evotech@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

Yeah, I try to use ai a fair bit in my work. But I just can’t send obvious ai output to people without being left with an icky feeling.

[–] leftzero@lemmy.dbzer0.com 30 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

I'm fairly certain it is writing 90% of Windows updates, at least...

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] melsaskca@lemmy.ca 16 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Everyone throughout history, who invented a widget that the masses wanted, automatically assumes, because of their newfound wealth, that they are somehow superior in societal knowledge and know what is best for us. Fucking capitalism. Fucking billionaires.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ArmchairAce1944@discuss.online 11 points 2 days ago

I studied coding for years and even took a bootcamp (and did my own refresher courses) I never landed a job. One thing that AI can do for me is help me in troubleshooting or some minor boilerplate code but not to do the job for me. I will be a hobbyist and hopefully aid in open source projects some day....any day now!

[–] inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world 13 points 2 days ago (4 children)

My company and specifically my team are looking at incorporating AI as a supplement to our coding.

We looked at the code produced and determined that it's of the quality of a new hire. However we're going in with eyes wide open, and for me skeptical AF, going to try to use it in a limited way to help relieve some of the burdens of our SW engineers, not replace. I'm leading up the usage of writing out unit tests because none of us particularly like writing unit tests and it's got a very nice, easy, established pattern that the AI can follow.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago (10 children)

We looked at the code produced and determined that it’s of the quality of a new hire.

As someone who did new hire training for about five years, this is not what I'd call promising.

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] bluesheep@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 day ago

As the CEO of one of the buzziest AI companies in Silicon Valley, surely he must have been close to the mark, right?

You must be delusional to believe this

[–] Itdidnttrickledown@lemmy.world 10 points 2 days ago

If he is wrong about that then he is probably wrong about nearly everything else he says. They just pull these statements out of their ass and try to make them real. The eternal problem with making something real is that reality cant be changed. The garbage they have now isn't that good and he should know that.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›