ACM Queue’s six researchers (Jenna Butler, Brian Houck, Margaret-Anne Storey, Travis Lowdermilk, Steven Clarke, and Emerson Murphy-Hill) dismantle the most persistent myths about GenAI in software engineering, and the evidence is humbling. Developers spend only about 14 percent of their time actually writing code — so even a perfect code generator touches a small slice of the job, and “AI wrote X% of our code” is a vanity metric that is neither statistically valid nor meaningfully tied to quality. The punchline of myth after myth is the same: context decides everything. Gains are real but uneven — one 2025 study found AI increased implementation time for experienced open-source developers by 18 percent; a semantically identical prompt rewrite changes generated code 46 percent of the time; only 29 percent of developers trust AI output even though 80 percent use it; and adoption stalls on competence penalties, de-skilling fears, and organizations that hand out licenses without rethinking workflows. The most useful framing for anyone building or buying devtools: measure outcomes, not volume — because “startups move fast with AI” doesn’t transfer to enterprises running legacy systems under compliance constraints. Speed is visible; complexity is not.
Eight Myths on Software Engineering and GenAI — Jenna Butler et al.
Six researchers dismantle the persistent myths about AI in software engineering — and the evidence says context, not volume, decides outcomes.