Experienced devs are 19% slower with AI tools. They just don't believe it.
A recent study found that experienced developers are 19% slower when using AI coding tools, despite believing they are more productive. This discrepancy highlights a concerning trend where developers rely on feelings rather than measurable outcomes to assess productivity. The issue is compounded by senior developers' tendency to modify AI suggestions extensively, leading to increased time spent on tasks.
- ▪Experienced developers reported a 19% slowdown when using AI coding tools compared to traditional methods.
- ▪Despite the slowdown, developers felt more productive, indicating a disconnect between perception and reality.
- ▪Senior developers often spend additional time modifying AI-generated code, which contributes to the overall slowdown.
DEV.to (Top) files mainly under programming. We currently carry 4,924 of its stories.
Story provenance
Source · retrieval · rights · ranking — open for full record
inspect →
Story provenance
Attribution is not the same as permission. This drawer separates discovery metadata, excerpts, WeSearch-generated summaries, reuse status, and whether the publisher receives the visit. Nothing here claims a legal grant the publisher has not made.
Record
| Original publisher | DEV.to (Top) |
| Canonical URL | https://dev.to/adioof/experienced-devs-are-19-slower-with-ai-tools-they-just-dont-believe-it-2afg |
| Publication time | Sun, 24 May 2026 13:16:32 +0000 |
| Retrieval time | 2026-05-24T13:37:32.733Z |
| Last seen | 2026-05-24T13:37:32.733Z |
| Headline source | Publisher (no WeSearch rewrite) |
| Excerpt source | publisher body |
| Excerpt method | First ~120 words (~800 chars) of extracted publisher body, fair-use limited. |
| Summary | WeSearch · cerebras-chat (WeSearch summarizer) |
| Summary source text | contentText |
| Citation coverage | Summary is a WeSearch-generated derivative; primary citation is the original publisher URL. |
| Cluster | SPDik9-ckF6D · 3 stories |
| Cluster logic | Grouped by semantic title/content similarity across sources within a rolling window. Same-publisher template collisions are excluded from coverage comparison. |
| Ranking reason | Story pages are not engagement-ranked. Hub feeds use recency, with optional source-diversified chronological ordering (cap consecutive stories per source). No personalized ranking. |
| Publisher visit | Yes — open original |
| Substitutes article? | No — link-out required for full text |
Rights status (four layers)
WeSearch handling by dimension
| Indexing | May the item be indexed (stored, ranked, made findable)? | Allowed |
| Snippet | May a short excerpt of the publisher's text be shown? | Allowed |
| AI summary | May WeSearch generate its own short summary of the article? | Limited |
| Retrieval / RAG | May the content be exposed for third-party retrieval-augmented generation? | Not asserted |
| Model training | May the content be used to train AI models? | Not asserted |
| Commercial reuse | May the content be reused commercially? | Not permitted |
Basis: Derived from the published RSS/Atom feed. Contact: [email protected]. Reviewed: 2026-07-24.
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
try { if(localStorage) { let currentUser = localStorage.getItem('current_user'); if (currentUser) { currentUser = JSON.parse(currentUser); if (currentUser.id === 2760047) { document.getElementById('article-show-container').classList.add('current-user-is-article-author'); } } } } catch (e) { console.error(e); } Aditya Agarwal Posted on May 24 Experienced devs are 19% slower with AI tools. They just don't believe it. #ai #productivity #codingtools #discuss Senior developers are 19% slower when using AI coding tools. But they think they're faster. That gap should terrify you. A recent study measured experienced developers using AI-assisted coding tools on real tasks. The result? A measurable 19% slowdown compared to working without AI. The kicker is what happened next.
…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at DEV.to (Top).