The article isn’t providing a lot of convincing data that AI improved much of anything, only that it didn’t cause incidents.

I really don’t understand why AI usage is mandatory for roles. Nobody’s doing anything like that for other productivity tools even when they’re proven to be helpful. Hell, a lot of employers can’t be bothered to provide basics like nice keyboards and monitors that exceed 1080p.

The current era of tech has way too many corporate losers.

The monitors thing is funny to me because I love using dual monitors at work, and my coworker doesn't, and this forced AI adoption would be like if I forced him to use dual monitors.

It's crazy how fast we went from big data and every exec needing some massive dataset with cooked up numbers to justify even the smallest decision, to this, where nothing matters except for ~vibes~. Does AI increase productivity? Does it improve or degrade quality? Who knows, but number must go up.

It’s the same trend of executives claiming RTO increases user productivity according to their data but could never show the data.

>Nobody’s doing anything like that for other productivity tools even when they’re proven to be helpful.

Isn't mandating IDE usage a perfectly reasonable and common thing?

It's a productivity tool after all.

People that don't code think that something can do code 98% correct is surely better, without seeing the hard enforcement of a 2% error without manual intervention. I think all of the jokes about stupid computers and weird behavior of languages when you use them out of spec (famously labeled wat) gave people the wrong impressions about why those problems exist or how they can or cannot be fixed. You'd think they'd be able to transfer that cynicism quicker to models since they are also dumb computer things but apparently they say "hello" and that is tricking them out of that?