My personal experience is: - Writing some boilerplate/copy-paste testing code might turn out fine, but I still need to check it and that takes more mental effort than to just copy-paste-adapt with well-known keyboard shortcuts. - Writing business-relevant production code that is readable, maintainable and concise: Forget AI (at least for now).

On good days I try to use and adapt to LLM-generated code, but at the end of the day, when I have to get things done I turn them off: It's easier to reflect and build a complex system without someone constantly "trying" to bullshit you... After all the LLM does not (yet?) know about all the details, the why and all other things that produce something readable, correct and concise.

I wouldn't hire a programmer who said they don't use AI because it doesn't help them.

I'm sure AI will close that gap ;)

I don't use "AI" to help me write code, it doesn't help me enough to offset the constant context switching, and then having to double-check what it spits out. For the same reason, I don't have a junior-level human assistant to pair with because that would slow me down.

Thanks for the heads-up, so those of us not getting enough value out of "AI" (about half according to the other comments) know not to apply. I have worked for plenty of managers and executives who can't write a memo or a spec as well as ChatGPT, I suspect those jobs will go to "AI" before my prospects dry up.

So it appears to me that neither the ones claiming that AI helps them, nor those saying it doesn't, are wrong. Not everyone finds AI to be helpful when coding.

Is much different than your observation:

About half of them have seen some increased productivity from doing so

Isn’t there an obvious difference?