[dakiol]

>The difference this time is pace: you could delay adopting “the cloud” for a couple of years and survive. With AI you might get a few months.

I don't think so. Take a good company A (with a good product and a good pace of good features) of today. Take the extreme case they decide not to use AI at all. Well, they will still be shipping good features at their current pace.

No amount of AI will make a bad company ship a better product than A's. If any, bad/mediocre companies will be pushing crap faster than they did before, but that's it.

AI can make good companies better, but cannot make bad companies good. Why does company A need to worry about shitty companies using AI? Sure, other good competitors could be using AI, but all in all, shipping "faster" is not the "mark" of good quality

[gamerdonkey]

Yeah, that closing message was a little weird to me. I understand framing the article as "not anti-AI", especially if the author uses and enjoys the tools. But the end sounds like a call to blindly adopt the tools and figure out the justification later.

[sanderjd]

Yeah I think it also really depends on what your business is. Many or most of us here (and likely also the author) work in the kinds of tech-forward businesses where competition is fierce and velocity is essentially. But there are many many businesses, and also tons of public sector organizations, where this is not the case. Leadership in those organizations should probably be going a lot more slowly, waiting and seeing, letting all the fast movers fight it out through all this churn, and adopting only whatever eventually rises to the top.

[davenz]

Hi, author here. You're absolutely right! (yes, Claude-pun, I'll see myself out...) - I mean, I agree that Company A will remain "good", and may not need to worry about Company B. If that came across in the post then it was unintentional.

A lot of the criticism I've seen here could probably be addressed by me clarifying that no, I don't think AI should be blindly adopted, and no I don't think it adds efficiency or productivity by just existing and being "used". It needs thoughtful implementation, and each developer I know or manage or have chatted to uses it subtly differently, hence why I encouraged experimentation and trial-and-error, because when it "clicks" for you, then in essentially every case I've experienced or seen first hand, its added something (whether rigor, speed, efficiency, capability, etc).