I have found that unless your job is making simple CRUD apps and you really don't care about quality at all, yes, you will be less productive. The amount of tiny problems slipping through is immense, and it is known that code reviews are ineffective at noticing all the bugs, as well as it not having any idea of the general code style or conventions, inability to learn if I tell it, and so forth. In the end I spend at least as much time as I would spend coding the thing myself just massaging the AI to make a somewhat working thing, and that at the expense of much, much worse quality. And, I myself am also miserable, since I'm basically spending my entire day communicating to a kindergarten child and teaching it, over and over again, except that a child eventually learns, AI doesn't. That's horrible. I don't want to spend my days doing that.

Companies I work at tend to value quality and correctness over productivity, as ultimately low quality and incorrect software makes for unhappy clients who we have to service out of our own pockets later on anyway as part of the warranty we provide for our software, ending up costing us a lot more in money and reputation. But, like I said, I'm also not seeing any productivity gain, not unless you throw every good practice out of the window and pretend to be the only dev in the team as the AI will willfully rewrite large chunks of the app and destroy your colleagues work in the process.

And for what? So that you can be a manager? What is your moat in the end of this? Will you advertise on your resume the ability to manipulate AI via text prompts as your skill? I suppose if you want to be a manager, maybe that's appealing. I don't. I want to actually make things, and be an active and intellectual part at making those things, not just a manager monitoring butts in (virtual) seats.