AI made these developers slower

In partnership with

Find customers on Roku this holiday season

Now through the end of the year is prime streaming time on Roku, with viewers spending 3.5 hours each day streaming content and shopping online. Roku Ads Manager simplifies campaign setup, lets you segment audiences, and provides real-time reporting. And, you can test creative variants and run shoppable ads to drive purchases directly on-screen.

Bonus: we’re gifting you $5K in ad credits when you spend your first $5K on Roku Ads Manager. Just sign up and use code GET5K. Terms apply.

Use code GET5K now

Everyone says AI makes you faster. The data says otherwise.

A rigorous study from METR tested 16 experienced developers on 246 real tasks in codebases they'd worked on for 5+ years. Using tools like Cursor Pro and Claude Sonnet.

The result? Developers using AI took 19% longer to complete tasks.

The twist? Those same developers believed they were 20% faster.

Their brains lied to them.

Why this matters

This isn't another "AI bad" take. It's a pattern recognition problem.

The study found that AI helps most when:

• You're unfamiliar with the codebase

• The task involves boilerplate or research

• You're exploring, not executing

AI hurts most when:

• You already know the codebase deeply

• The task requires institutional knowledge

• You're an expert doing expert-level work

The developers in the study had an average of 5 years and 1,500 commits on their codebases. They were already fast. AI couldn't keep up.

Where the time actually goes

The screen recordings revealed how AI-assisted work differs:

Developers spent 9% of their time reviewing and cleaning AI outputs. Another 4% just waiting for responses.

For experts, this overhead exceeded any time saved.

The perception gap

Before the study: developers predicted AI would save them 24% time.

After the study: developers estimated AI saved them 20% time.

Reality: AI cost them 19% more time.

Why the disconnect?

1. AI work feels easier. Less cognitive load, more delegation. Your brain interprets "easier" as "faster."

2. More idle time. Screen recordings showed more periods of no activity with AI. Developers zoned out more.

3. Confirmation bias. When AI helps on one task, you remember it. When it wastes time, you blame the task.

5 techniques that actually work

Based on what high-performers do differently:

1. Use AI for unfamiliar territory only

If you could write it faster than you could explain it, just write it. Save AI for code you'd have to Google anyway.

2. Time-box your prompts

Set a 2-minute rule. If you can't get useful output in 2 minutes of prompting, switch to manual coding. Don't enter the re-prompt death spiral.

3. Start with the hard parts

Skeptics use AI for complex tasks (where it fails). Enthusiasts use it for simple tasks (where it succeeds). Be strategic: use AI for medium-complexity tasks where context isn't critical.

4. Write tests first, then let AI implement

Give AI a clear target. "Make these tests pass" is better than "build this feature." Measurable success criteria = better AI output.

5. Track your actual time

Mike Judge, a developer who saw the METR study, ran his own experiment: flipping a coin to decide AI vs manual for each task over 6 weeks.

His result: AI slowed him down 21%.

You won't know your number until you measure it.

The bottom line

AI coding tools aren't useless. They're context-dependent.

For junior developers learning new codebases: huge help.

For experts on familiar projects: often a tax.

For everyone: the productivity boost has a steeper learning curve than anyone expected.

The winners aren't the ones who use AI most. They're the ones who know when not to.

Catch you tomorrow.

If this changed how you think about AI coding tools, share it with a developer who's frustrated that Cursor isn't making them 10x faster.