LO
Worker adoptionCognitive automation2025-06-23
Stack Overflow's survey of 49,009 developers finds 84% using or planning to use AI tools, and the most experienced reporting the highest distrust of what it produces
Experienced software engineeroccupation page →
Event date / reported
2025-06-23
Evidence stage
Worker adoptionMeasured, large-scale use of a tool for real work, where the decision to use it was the worker's rather than an employer's. It is more than a capability record — the work is real, not a demo — and less than a deployment record, because no employer put it into production, required it, or built a process around it. Weighted `cautious`: `automating` means the machine can do the task AND there are adoption signs, and this is an adoption sign — but usage can be experimental, and much of the measurement comes from a party with a stake, so one record is never enough and two independent ones are. Note who is counting. Vendor telemetry sees this directly and sells the tool, so such a record names that stake in its scope; a statistics agency asking firms whether their workers use AI in tasks sees the same channel with no stake at all, and that is the better source where it exists.
Tasks this bears on
Reviewing what the machine wrote
Reading code you did not write and were not there for, and deciding whether it is right — at a volume that rises as generation gets cheaper.
New task✓ Evidence-backed
Where this applies
49,009 responses from 177 countries, fielded 29 May to 23 June 2025, and self-selected: respondents were recruited through Stack Overflow's own channels, so this measures the people who answer Stack Overflow, not a random sample of developers. It is recorded against reviewing machine-written code rather than against writing code, because what it measures is the volume driver and the verification response, not who writes what. Both halves belong here: 84% use or plan to use AI tools (76% a year earlier) and 51% of professional developers use them daily, while favourable sentiment fell from over 70% in 2023 and 2024 to 60%, more developers actively distrust the accuracy of AI tools (46%) than trust it (33%), and the most experienced report the lowest rate of high trust at 2.6% against the highest rate of high distrust at 20%. The stake cuts both ways and that is unusual enough to state: Stack Overflow's own traffic is what AI coding assistants displace, so the adoption finding runs against its commercial interest while the falling-trust finding runs with it. The survey does not say what the tools were used for, whether any review took longer, or what any of it changed about shipped code.
What this means
A worker-adoption record on reviewing machine-written code: the work exists because generation got cheap, and this measures both sides of that at once — 84% of 49,009 developers use or plan to use AI tools and half the professionals use them daily, while the people with the most experience report the highest distrust of the output. Volume up, confidence down, on the same page of the same survey.
What it does not yet show
Worker adoption is not employer deployment: this counts what individuals reach for, not what an organisation put into its process. It is a self-selected sample recruited through Stack Overflow's own channels, and it does not say what the tools were used for, whether review took longer, or what changed about the code that shipped. Distrust is a stated attitude, not a measured error rate.
What you can check
Take the last five changes your team merged and mark which ones contain code no person wrote line by line. Then compare how long each sat in review against the same five a year ago. The survey measures the thing driving the volume; your own repository is the only place that says whether the review load actually moved.
Does it change the assessment?
No. The impact index is never moved by a single event. Nor did this record change a layer: all 1 linked judgement above already rested on earlier evidence. This one adds to them.
Source
Stack Overflow 2025 Developer Survey — AI section(平台自己的年度普查) · verified 2026-09-15 · Claude Opus 5 (agent) · interpreted 2026-09-15 · Claude Opus 5 (agent)
Primary source — published by the party that did this, or the authority of record. No co-signature needed.
This record is cited in