Study Finds AI Coding Tools Hinder Skill Mastery

A new study suggests that while AI assistants can shave time off coding tasks, they may also blunt the learning that turns novices into skilled developers. The experiment, run by AI lab Anthropic, found junior engineers using AI completed exercises slightly faster yet retained fewer concepts, with the biggest drop in debugging know-how—an essential skill for any coder.

Inside the Experiment: How the AI Study Was Conducted

Researchers recruited 52 junior software engineers for a 75-minute session of Python tasks, preceded by a warm-up and followed by a quiz. One group had access to an AI assistant; the other worked unaided. On average, the AI group finished just two minutes faster, but their post-task quiz scores were strikingly lower: 50% versus 67% for those who coded without AI. The largest gap appeared on debugging questions, where participants needed to reason about faults and repairs.

The narrow time savings paired with a double-digit knowledge deficit is significant. For early-career developers, debugging forces deep engagement with code structure and intent—precisely the muscle that early shortcuts seem to under-exercise.

How AI Use Changed Outcomes for Junior Developers

It wasn’t just whether participants used AI—it was how. The worst performers delegated entire solutions to the AI or pivoted to AI after a brief manual attempt, effectively bypassing the struggle where learning happens. Another weak pattern: asking the AI to directly fix code without probing why it broke or what principles applied.

Conversely, participants who interrogated the assistant—asking why generated code worked, following up with “what if” questions, or requesting concept explanations—retained more. A hybrid approach that paired code generation with concurrent explanations performed better still. The best post-test scores came from those who used the assistant primarily for conceptual clarity rather than code output.

Why Shortcuts Can Stunt Mastery and Debugging Skills

The results echo findings from cognitive science. UCLA psychologist Robert Bjork’s “desirable difficulties” framework shows that effortful processing—sometimes getting stuck—cements learning. Likewise, the “generation effect” demonstrates that producing answers yourself yields stronger memory than simply reading them. When AI tools hand over finished code or one-click fixes, they risk replacing the very struggle that builds durable expertise.

Debugging magnifies this trade-off. It requires hypothesizing failures, tracing execution, and reconciling mental models with actual behavior. If an assistant patches a bug without engaging these steps, learners miss the chance to build transferable debugging instincts.

The Industry Context: AI Assistants in Development

These findings arrive as major platforms race to embed AI in software development. Microsoft and Google pitch assistants across their toolchains, while Meta has said it aims for over 50% of its code to be AI-generated. Even space exploration isn’t exempt: NASA sent AI-generated, human-vetted instructions—produced with Anthropic’s Claude—to the Perseverance rover.

Productivity results remain mixed. Some experiments, including those around GitHub Copilot, highlight speed gains and reduced boilerplate. But the AI research nonprofit METR reported earlier this year that prompting, verifying, and reworking model output can neutralize or exceed time saved, particularly when tasks demand careful reasoning.

Using AI Without Losing the Plot: Practical Strategies

For learners and teams, the message is not “don’t use AI,” but “use it deliberately.” Effective strategies include:

• Ask conceptual questions first: definitions, trade-offs, edge cases, and error explanations.
• Request line-by-line rationales whenever code is generated; push for alternatives and compare.
• Draft an initial solution before prompting, then use the assistant to critique and stress-test.
• Treat debugging as a thinking exercise: hypothesize causes, isolate variables, and only then consult AI to validate or expand your reasoning.

What Organizations Should Measure Next for Learning

Short-term task throughput is only part of the story. Teams should track ramp-up time for new hires, defect escape rates, incident recovery speed, and how quickly developers navigate unfamiliar code. Knowledge retention metrics—like follow-up quizzes, code reviews targeting reasoning quality, and postmortem depth—can capture whether AI use nurtures or narrows understanding.

Pragmatically, leaders can pilot different AI usage patterns, A/B test guidance (e.g., force explanation-first prompts), and examine long-tail impacts on maintainability. If AI boosts output today but erodes the debugging and design instincts that prevent tomorrow’s outages, the net productivity may be negative.

The takeaway is clear: AI can accelerate coding, but mastery still demands cognitive effort. The smartest teams will pair assistants with intentional learning design—so speed doesn’t come at the cost of skill.