[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