The fact that people overestimate its usefulness is somewhat of a “shrug” for me. So long as it _is_ making big differences, that’s still great whether people overestimate it or not.
For low complexity greenfield projects (best case) they found a 30% to 40% productivity boost.
For high-complexity brownfield projects (worst case) they found a -5% to 10% productivity boost.
The METR study from a few weeks ago showed an average productivity drop around 20%.
That study also found that the average developer believed AI had made them 20% more productive. The difference in perception and reality was on average 40 percentage points.
In my specific case I felt like I was maybe 30% faster on greenfield projects with AI (and maybe 10% on brownfield). Then I read the study showing a 40 percentage point overestimate on average.
I started tracking things and it’s pretty clear I’m not actually saving anywhere near 30%, and I’d estimate that long term I might be in the negative productivity realm.
In the study, every single person overestimated time saved on nearly every single task they measured.
Some people saved time, some didn’t. Some saved more time, some less. But every single person overestimated time saved by a large margin.
I’m not saying you aren’t saving time, but it’s very unlikely that if you aren’t tracking things very carefully that you are overestimating.