Tech company executives are confident that AI will completely transform the economy and point to the changes they see in-house to prove that this change is coming fast. At Meta, Google, Microsoft, and others, leadership says that AI generates a growing share of the overall code, which makes it cheaper and faster to produce. The implication is that if this AI is good enough that tech companies are using it internally to improve efficiency and reduce headcount, it\u2019s only a matter of time until every other industry is similarly transformed.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Developers who are told to use AI whether they like it or not, however, tell a different story. On Reddit<\/a>, Hacker News<\/a> and other places where people in software development talk to each other, more and more people are becoming disillusioned with the promise of code generated by large language models. Developers talk not just about how the AI output is often flawed, but that using AI to get the job done is often a more time consuming, harder, and more frustrating experience because they have to go through the output and fix its mistakes. More concerning, developers who use AI at work report that they feel like they are de-skilling themselves and losing their ability to do their jobs as well as they used to.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cWe’re being told to use [AI] agents for broad changes across our codebase. There’s no way to evaluate whether that much code is well-written or secure\u2014especially when hundreds of other programmers in the company are doing the same,\u201d a UX designer at a midsized tech company told me. 404 Media granted all the developers we talked to for this story anonymity because they signed non-disclosure agreements or because they fear retribution from their employers. \u201cWe’re building a rat’s nest of tech debt that will be impossible to untangle when these models become prohibitively expensive (any minute now…).\u201d<\/p>\n The actual quality of output doesn’t matter as much as our willingness to participate.<\/p>\n Tech company executives love to brag<\/a> about how much of the code at their company is AI-generated. In April, Google said that three quarters of new code at the company was generated by AI<\/a>. Last year, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella said up to 30 percent<\/a> of the company\u2019s code was generated by AI. Microsoft\u2019s CTO Kevin Scott said he expects 95 percent of all code<\/a> at the company to be AI-generated by 2030. Meta\u2019s Mark Zuckerberg said last year he expects AI to write most of the code improving AI within 12-18 months<\/a>. Anthropic says 90 percent<\/a> of the code written by most if its team is AI generated. Tech companies have also been bragging about their \u201ctokenmaxxing<\/a>,\u201d or how much money they\u2019re spending on AI tools instead of human employees.<\/p>\n \ud83d\udca1<\/p>\n Are you a developer at Google, Microsoft, or another tech being pressured to use AI? I would love to hear from you. Using a non-work device, you can message me securely on Signal at \u202a(609) 678-3204\u202c. Otherwise, send me an email at emanuel@404media.co.<\/p>\n Predictably, the huge spike in productivity that these companies claim their own AI products have enabled hasn\u2019t resulted in more or better products, shorter work weeks, or better consumer experiences. Mostly, AI implementation in tech companies has been used to justify multiple massive rounds of layoffs. To name just a few examples where tech companies said they reduced headcount because of AI use, more recently, Meta said it would cut 10 percent<\/a> of its workforce (around 8,000 people), Microsoft said it would offer voluntary retirement to 7 percent<\/a> of its American workforce (around 125,000 people). Snapchat<\/a> said it would lay off 16 percent of its full-time staffers (about 1,000 people).\u00a0<\/p>\n This post is for paid members only<\/p>\n Become a paid member for unlimited ad-free access to articles, bonus podcast content, and more.<\/p>\n