[bigstrat2003]

I think there is actually something wrong with that. What should matter is the work produced, not the tools used to produce it. If AI tools really are all they are cracked up to be, then people using them will get ahead, and the company can justifiably point out "your peer gets twice the work done as you" to the other employees. But mandating tool use in and of itself is senseless and counterproductive.

[mapleleaf1921]

Arguably, what should matters is the impact your work has on your end user.

I agree with you that it's up to the people to adopt new tooling so they don't get left behind.

But from the company perspective, it's beneficial to get people using the new tools as fast as possible so that the overall impact on end user is accelerated.

An example is the adoption of CNC machines in factories. If you're a old timer using mill and lathe, you may argue that the company should not enforce all its workers to learn how to use CNC machines because you can still use the lathe and mill just fine. But from the company perspective, having you learn and run 3 CNC machines at the same time is much better than have you run 1 mill or lathe.

[fooster]

The unfortunate reality is that unless you use these tools it is impossible to keep up. People using these tools well are substantially more productive, and often they were already the most productive.

[baq]

Force multipliers need force to multiply, but also remember force is a vector, so watch out for multiplying in the wrong direction