Hi everyone! Superside is scaling our creative team, and we're hiring AI Creative Directors ⚡️ We're looking for people who live inside node-based AI pipelines [Flora, Figma Weave, Krea Nodes] and who know how to chain models together to build real production workflows, not just prompt one tool at a time 🧠 If you've spent the last couple of years deep in this space - building pipelines, breaking them, rebuilding them better - you know exactly what that means. This role is for people who think in systems, not single outputs. Superside is 100% remote. Learn more about us: https://www.superside.com/ Open role: https://jobs.lever.co/superside/2df61b6c-a628-4fba-ab3e-ccaba86adcde?lever-via=padFs434mF&lever-social=job_site If you are interested and want to apply, send me a DM!

This is amazing

AI allows us to write code faster. But that doesn’t necessarily mean we are delivering software faster.

This is one of the most interesting contradictions emerging in software development.

According to GitLab’s 2026 AI Accountability Report, conducted by The Harris Poll among 1,528 developers and technology decision-makers across six countries:

• 78% say developers are writing and committing code faster since adopting AI tools.

• 79% believe individual developer productivity has improved.

• However, 85% agree that the bottleneck has shifted from writing code to reviewing and validating it.

• Additionally, 82% believe AI-generated code could create a new form of technical debt that their organizations are not yet prepared to manage.

GitLab calls this the “AI Paradox”: individual productivity increases, but the overall software delivery process does not accelerate at the same pace.

Research from DORA, Google Cloud’s software delivery performance research program, points in a similar direction.

Its findings show that a 25% increase in AI adoption was associated with a 1.5% decrease in delivery throughput and a 7.2% decrease in delivery stability.

This does not mean that AI always harms software development. These results show an association, not a universal rule or a causal relationship that applies to every team.

The problem is not using AI.

The problem begins when an organization accelerates code generation while leaving the rest of its development process unchanged:

• Slow manual reviews. • Limited automated testing. • Ambiguous requirements. • Oversized pull requests. • Lack of architectural criteria. • Poor traceability. • Unclear ownership of AI-generated code.

If we double the speed of one stage without improving the next ones, we simply move the bottleneck somewhere else.

Manav Khurana, Chief Product and Marketing Officer at GitLab, summarized it clearly:

“Speed without control is a liability, not an advantage.”

As a full-stack developer, I believe AI can genuinely accelerate tasks such as creating components, writing documentation, exploring solutions, refactoring code, or generating an initial set of tests.

But producing more code should never be the main measure of success.

The result should be measured in software that:

• Solves a real need correctly. • Remains maintainable over time. • Includes testing and security controls. • Can be understood by other developers. • Reaches production without multiplying incidents.

AI does not eliminate the need for architecture, testing, and technical judgment. On the contrary, the faster we can generate code, the more important these elements become.

The next competitive advantage will not be generating more code with AI. It will be verifying it, governing it, and turning it into reliable software.

Has AI actually reduced delivery time for your team, or has it simply increased the amount of code waiting to be reviewed?

And remember: good software starts with good decisions. See you in the next one.

The distinction between writing code faster and delivering software faster is exactly where many teams get stuck. Which non-coding bottleneck do you think AI-assisted teams underestimate most?