If you are wasting time you may be value negative to a business. If you are value negative over the long run you should be let go.
We’re ultimately here to make money, not just pump out characters into text files.
Different projects have other incentives. Dealing with AI slop from internet randos is a very real problem in open-source codebases. I've pretty much just stopped reviewing code from people that I don't know on one project that I work on when it's obviously going to take way more time than it would have done to do the patch myself. There used to be an incentive to help educate new contributors, of course, but now I can't know whether that is even happening.
The MIT study just has a whole host of problems, but ultimately it boils down to: giving your engineers cursor and telling them to be 10x doesn't work. Beyond each individual engineer being skilled at using AI, you have to adjust your process for it. Code review is a perfect example; until you optimize the review process to reduce human friction, AI tools are going to be massively bottlenecked.
What value is that person adding? I can fire up claude code/cursor/whatever myself and get the same result with less overhead. It's not a matter of "is AI valuable", it's a matter of "is this person adding value to the process". In the above case... no, none at all.