If you believe the marketing, AI "Agents" are about to replace us all, and "Autonomous Software Engineering" has arrived. If you ask actual developers, we're mostly just fixing hallucinations in boilerplate code.
Every week brings another breathless announcement. Another demo video showing an AI building a complete app in 47 seconds. Another VC-funded startup claiming to have cracked AGI for code. Meanwhile, you're sitting in a PR review, staring at AI-generated code that confidently imports a library that doesn't exist.
The noise is exhausting. But here's the thing: AI coding tools are useful. Just not in the way the hype machine suggests.
The real value isn't "autonomy," where AI does the job for you. It's "flow," where AI keeps you in the zone. That distinction matters more than any feature comparison, and understanding it will save you from chasing the wrong tools.
Category 1: The Sidekicks (IDE Extensions)
The Hype: "It reads your mind and writes the function."
The Reality: It's a super-powered StackOverflow copy-paste.
GitHub Copilot, Cody, and Supermaven fall into this category. They live inside your existing IDE as extensions, watching what you type and suggesting completions. The marketing implies they understand your codebase, your intentions, and your architectural decisions.
They don't. What they actually do is pattern-match against billions of lines of training data and make educated guesses about what comes next.
That sounds dismissive, but it shouldn't be. For certain tasks, this is genuinely transformative. Writing regex patterns that would otherwise require fifteen minutes of trial and error becomes a two-second autocomplete. Generating boilerplate for unit tests goes from tedious to trivial. Converting between data formats, writing SQL queries, scaffolding API endpoints, all the repetitive work that burns hours across a sprint becomes nearly instant.
The problem emerges when developers start trusting these suggestions for anything beyond boilerplate. Ask Copilot to implement business logic and you'll get something that looks correct, compiles successfully, and silently breaks edge cases. Ask it for security-sensitive code and you might ship a vulnerability that passed all your reviews because the code looked reasonable.
The Verdict: Essential for reducing toil, but requires heavy verification. Use them for the boring stuff. Don't use them for the important stuff. And definitely don't measure productivity by how many suggestions you accept.
Category 2: The Native Editors (AI-First IDEs)
The Hype: "The IDE that codes for you."
The Reality: This is the biggest actual leap in 2025.
Cursor and Windsurf represent a fundamentally different approach. Instead of bolting AI onto an existing editor, they build the entire IDE around AI-assisted workflows. This architectural decision has practical consequences that matter.
Because these tools own the runtime, the terminal, and the diff view, they reduce context switching in ways plugins can't. When Cursor's "Composer" mode suggests a multi-file refactor, you see the changes across your entire project in a unified interface. You can accept, modify, or reject at the file level without jumping between tabs.
This might sound like a minor UX improvement. It's not. The friction cost of context switching compounds throughout a coding session. Every time you break focus to check another file, run a test, or verify a change, you're burning cognitive resources. Tools that reduce those interruptions keep you in flow state longer.
The multi-file editing capabilities are particularly strong for refactoring work. Renaming a function, updating its call sites, adjusting tests, and modifying documentation can happen in a single coordinated operation. For migration tasks, dependency updates, or architectural changes that touch dozens of files, this is genuinely faster than doing it manually.
The Verdict: Superior to plugins for anyone doing regular refactoring or multi-file changes. The investment in learning a new editor pays off for teams with complex, interconnected codebases.
Category 3: The Autonomous Agents (AI Software Engineers)
The Hype: "The First AI Software Engineer."
The Reality: Still experimental. High potential, but high babysitting cost.
Devin and SWE-agent represent the bleeding edge: AI systems that theoretically work independently, browsing documentation, writing code, running tests, and iterating until the task is complete. The demo videos are impressive. An AI figures out an unfamiliar codebase, implements a feature, and opens a PR, all without human intervention.
In practice, the experience differs from the demos.
These agents work best for isolated "janitorial" tasks. Version bumps across multiple packages. Dependency migrations where the changes are mechanical. Adding logging to existing functions. Tasks with clear success criteria and minimal interaction with core business logic.
Where they struggle is anywhere that requires understanding context beyond the immediate code. Implementing a feature that needs to match existing patterns in your codebase. Making architectural decisions that align with your team's conventions. Anything touching authentication, authorization, or data integrity.
The oversight cost is the killer. You can't just fire off a task and forget about it. You need to review the agent's approach, check its intermediate steps, and validate the final output. For complex tasks, the time spent supervising often exceeds the time you would have spent just doing the work yourself.
The Verdict: Useful for sandbox tasks and mechanical migrations. Not ready to touch core production logic without significant human oversight. Worth experimenting with, but don't bet your roadmap on them.
The Hidden Cost of AI: Rework and Review
Here's what nobody talks about in the productivity demos: the Jevons Paradox applied to code.
When writing code becomes cheap and fast, we write more of it. But reading code is still expensive. Someone has to review every AI-generated PR. Someone has to debug the subtle issues that passed initial review. Someone has to maintain the extra abstraction layers that seemed like a good idea when they took three seconds to generate.
The nastiest problem is the "Hybrid PR." Code that's 50% AI-generated and 50% human-written often takes the longest to review. The context switches between AI patterns and human patterns. The reviewer can't develop a mental model of the author's intent because there are effectively two authors with different styles.
This isn't theoretical. A rigorous study from METR in July 2025 found that experienced developers took 19% longer to complete tasks when using AI tools, despite believing they were faster. Teams report that review times have increased even as coding times have decreased. The net effect on cycle time is smaller than the productivity demos suggest, sometimes negligible.
This doesn't mean AI tools aren't worth using. It means you need to measure the entire pipeline, not just the "lines written per hour" number that looks good in executive reports.
How to Separate Hype from Reality in Your Own Team
Don't trust demo videos. Don't trust vendor benchmarks. Trust your own repository data.
The questions that actually matter are: Are developers accepting AI suggestions, or ignoring them? Is AI-generated code causing more rework in PRs? Which tools are your power users actually using daily versus which ones got installed and forgotten?
This is where measurement becomes critical. Self-reported usage surveys are unreliable because developers often overestimate their AI adoption. Vendor telemetry only shows you data for their specific tool, not how it fits into your broader workflow.
What you need is code-level visibility: the ability to see which PRs contain AI-assisted code, how that code performs in review, and whether it requires more or less revision than human-written code.
Span provides this visibility. The platform can detect AI-generated code with over 95% accuracy across all major AI coding tools, giving you ground truth on adoption rather than self-reported estimates. More importantly, it correlates AI usage with downstream metrics like review cycles and rework rates, so you can see whether your AI investments are actually paying off.
The goal isn't to discourage AI tool usage. It's to ensure you're investing in tools that genuinely improve your team's output rather than just creating the appearance of productivity.
Conclusion
The best AI coding tool is the one that fits your workflow, not the one with the coolest Twitter demo.
Sidekicks like Copilot reduce toil on repetitive tasks but require constant verification. Native editors like Cursor and Windsurf genuinely improve multi-file workflows and refactoring. Autonomous agents like Devin show promise for isolated tasks but aren't ready for unsupervised production work.
None of them are magic. All of them require thoughtful integration into your development process. And measuring their actual impact requires looking beyond the metrics that vendors want you to track.
Experiment aggressively. Try the new tools, push their limits, and see what works for your specific codebase and team structure. But measure the results with something more rigorous than vibes.
The AI revolution in software development is real. It's just more mundane than the hype suggests, and that's okay. Mundane improvements that compound across thousands of developer-hours are worth more than revolutionary demos that don't survive contact with production code.
Unsure if your team's AI tools are hype or reality? Connect Span to your repo to see exactly how much AI code is actually sticking in production.
Top comments (0)