Dec 01, 2025 – by Sahil R.

---

🧠 Big idea + report of the week

The productivity paradox of AI coding assistants

Many founders assume adding AI coding assistants (like Cursor, Copilot, Claude Code) will 10× developer output. The reality is more complicated.

Here’s what research and real teams are finding:

1. Speed vs. perception

   • METR’s July 2025 trial: developers with AI were actually 19 % slower on OSS tasks, but they felt 20 % faster.

   • The dopamine loop of instant code makes it feel productive, even when review/debug cycles erase the gains.

2. The quality trap

   • 66 % of devs in the 2025 Stack Overflow survey said AI outputs are “almost right but not quite.”

   • More context = more irrelevant noise. Senior engineers often spend more time fixing AI code than writing it from scratch.

3. Security & compliance risks

   • Apiiro’s 2024 study: AI‑generated code had 322 % more privilege‑escalation paths and 153 % more design flaws.

   • Secrets exposure rose 40 %, often due to hard‑coded credentials. For SOC 2/GDPR/HIPAA companies, this is a real compliance red flag.

4. The 70 % problem

   • AI gets you to a demo fast (70 %), but the last 30 %—edge cases, tests, production readiness—is still human‑intensive.

   • For juniors, AI scaffolding feels magical. For seniors, it often slows them down.

5. Business vs. dev reality

   • Leaders love the “10×” pitch, but real bottlenecks are design reviews, QA, system dependencies—not typing speed.

   • Expect incremental wins in boilerplate and onboarding, not exponential leaps.

Why this matters for founders

• Don’t over‑index on AI as a productivity silver bullet.

• Use AI assistants for prototypes, docs lookup, or junior onboarding.

• For core product and security‑sensitive code, invest in solid engineering practices first.

AI coding assistants are accelerators for demos and MVPs, but not replacements for senior engineering or rigorous review. Treat them as scaffolding, not shortcuts.

---

The new reality of AI funding: massive checks, fewer winners, and tougher competition

PitchBook’s latest Emerging Tech Research shows how concentrated AI venture funding has become. Out of 1,086 AI VC deals in Q3, just four rounds—xAI, Anthropic, Nscale, and Mistral—accounted for nearly half of all capital deployed.

What’s happening under the hood

• Foundational models capture the lion’s share of capital

  Investors view the LLM layer as the infrastructure on which every application will be built, so they’re willing to deploy massive rounds into a handful of contenders (e.g., Anthropic $13 B, xAI $10 B, Mistral €1.7 B).

• “Picks & shovels” layer is gaining momentum

  Nscale’s $1.1 B raise shows heavy betting on GPU clouds, data‑centre capacity, and compute infrastructure—not just the LLMs themselves. Many believe this layer will deliver more consistent, less winner‑take‑all returns.

• Semiconductor funding doubled the historical average

  AI‑specific chip startups pulled in $3.8 B in Q3 vs. the usual ≈ $1.9 B. Scarcity of Nvidia GPUs, model‑specific accelerators, and sovereign compute initiatives are driving the surge.

• VCs don’t want concentration risk, but the market forces it

  At the application layer, winners are still unclear. At the LLM + infra layer, frontrunners are obvious, so capital consolidates around them, creating a paradox: hedge bets by backing multiple model providers, yet the infra + compute layer concentrates value.

Implications for founders

• LLM or infra‑layer startups – investor appetite remains wide open, but competition is brutal and capital intensity is unprecedented.

• Application‑layer startups – differentiation and distribution matter more than ever; funding gravity has shifted upstream.

Q3 didn’t just show strong AI funding; it showed the shape of AI funding—a narrow pyramid where foundation‑model and compute layers pull away while everyone else fights for the remaining slice.

---

US VC ecosystem still finds plenty of room for growth

PitchBook’s latest global VC ecosystem rankings confirm that the United States still dominates venture capital, even as new regions push upward and geopolitical forces reshape where innovation happens.

Key takeaways

• The US remains the global centre of VC gravity – It leads in both development (size, maturity, depth of capital) and growth (speed of expansion). No other region matches its deal volume, valuation strength, and startup density.

• San Francisco is still #1, but new US cities are accelerating – SF sits far above every other city in development scores, reaffirming its global lead. On growth, Nashville tops the world, and 14 of the top 20 fastest‑growing ecosystems are in North America. The US is expanding from the top and the bottom simultaneously.

• A surprising winner: Saudi Arabia – Despite ranking 19th overall, Saudi Arabia is now #1 in growth, ahead of Switzerland, the UAE, and other fast‑advancing markets.

• Eleven new countries entered the top‑20 growth list – Global participation is widening even though the US still dominates.

• AI continues to define the cycle – US AI funding in this period exceeded the next 20 countries combined. In Europe, the UK, Germany, and France lead AI development—but their totals remain far below the US.

• Fintech and healthcare reveal different power centres

  • India ranks #3 globally in fintech after the US and UK.

  • Europe dominates healthcare, with 11 of the top 20 national hubs.

  • Boston cements its status as the world’s strongest healthcare ecosystem outside SF.

What this means for founders & investors

The US is still the best‑positioned ecosystem for capital availability, valuations, and AI talent density. Yet new growth pockets—from the Gulf to emerging US cities—are creating fresh opportunities, especially for founders willing to build where competition is lower and incentives are rising.

---

End of article.