> Productivity Is About (Much) More than Finishing Tasks Quickly

You can be highly productive and yet produce nothing of value.

Too much hype in the process of AI development.

If analyzing the basic theory of LLM or AI (second hand data, data conversion, cognitive bias, etc.), this will make it more persuasive.

The adopted solution to this, to meet internal targets, is to accept reduced quality. Flood the ticketing system with bogus reports, each with 5 paragraphs of technobabble. In response, you get similarly faulty AI-driven triage tools to deal with the slop. But the triage tools have the same problem: they just don't work that well. Plenty of garbage gets through, and plenty of actual issues get filtered out.

The first movers get some eye-popping numbers to show management, but the aggregate productivity of the corporation is unchanged at best.

So is the productivity increase an illusion? Depends how you look at it. Is the productivity boost for the corporation an illusion? Yes. But, most ICs are measured by tickets closed, commits pushed, lines of code written, and tokens used. Like it or not, that is the definition of "productivity" that has been given to ICs. They're just doing what they're told.

Enterprise controls make what could be a simple cron job into a nearly impossible scheduled task.

So AI has to be one shot for me where I use it.

So productivity is dramatically lower if I have to manually track and execute tasks as some kind of human scheduler system.

It doesn't. It just lets them work less.

so even if you 10x your coding, you aren't gonna have an appreciable effect on total output

The fact that that is exactly what is happening (everyone passing off slop to everyone else and pretending either they didn't use AI or it isn't slop actually) is telling.

The mistake was giving it to everyone too early too fast. "If everyone is super, no one will be"