[scottlamb]

> I am among the oldest on our team and also the most in tune with AI.

Congratulations. But you completely missed my point. I didn't say old people can't be in tune with AI.

> I see AI-native as those who have embraced it

That's not what the word "native" means. In the human language situation I referred to, it's about the language you learned first. It's not a synonym of proficient or fluent. If you learned to code first without AI tools, you are not AI-native by any definition I would understand, no matter how good at using AI you may be.

It's not just "English-native" that makes me think they have this meaning in mind. It's also the term "digital native" that gets thrown around a lot and is absolutely about how old you are. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_native

[dasyatidprime]

I think this is just semantic drift (though I am broadly sympathetic to “boo semantic drift”). I see this business use of the term as treating the “mind attuned to being immersed in” and “habitually, automatically reaches for” sub-meanings as the relevant ones, which is (almost as you say, but skew) not quite the same thing as “proficient when the ability is actively engaged”. The more you're trying to navigate a dynamic environment rather than hiring for tasks well-defined in advance, the more that distinction matters in practice.

[scottlamb]

That's the most reasonable interpretation I've heard. I'm not assuming they're being reasonable, though. I have a deeply negative view of the crytocurrency industry including Coinbase, and they just wrote "non-technical teams are now shipping production code", so I'm more primed to assume they mean something unethical, short-sighted, unrealistic, and negligent.

Another somewhat reasonable interpretation occurred to me later: that they're using "AI-native" as a shorthand for "AI-native systems" aka systems designed with AI / to take advantage of AI from the start, and thus "AI-native talent" as a shorthand for "people talented in creating those systems", rather than the people themselves being AI-native. But again, given who said it, I'm not going to assume that's what they meant.

scoot's comment [1]: "I'm not sure exactly which children they're planning to replace all their staff with, nor how they plan to get around the child labour laws" sounds exactly right to me.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48030120