I agree that we still haven’t figured out what’s the best way to use AI tools, but over the time it would mature and people would come up with patterns, conventions, and design principles so the quality of what is produced will be maintained or increased while keeping the productivity gains.
Every single person I talk too that is enthusiastic about AI is so because they can't code for shit. Sure, then the AI seems better. But it never really is. Learn to code, that inertia you are talking about is the technical debt. It will drag you down into the abyss eventually
(also let's be honest, building yet another CRUD app - eg what 99% of software devs actually do, is not "creating value" - with or without AI)
I'm glad there is a tool that let's these companies have even shittier code shipped even faster. The faster they burn down the better.
There's a reason they're trying to replace humans with AI: they just want outcomes. People learning and growing is only useful if it generates better outcomes. If you can get the same thing with a bunch of reverse centaurs, from a corporate perspective that's better: labour becomes more fungible and you can spend even less on training and investment in staff (assuming you ever did). And do it right and those folks will just train your machines to make them even better (see: Meta capturing worker activity and reallocating large numbers of staff to data labelling).
All AI has really succeeding in proving so far is that humans CAN really, very much "keep up", despite repeated repeated repeated repeated assertions that in six months it will not be so
But it isn't a loss for any employers. They're not being sandbagged in any way. It's the path they've chosen, knowingly and willingly.