This is probably contrary to conventional wisdom (esp among the startup/VC crowd) but: there are very few scenarios where how quickly you build something matters more than the quality of what you build.

The AI coding era has brought about an unhealthy obsession with speed of software dev (where "speed" is often measured by fallacious metrics like LOC pushed per day, but that's tangential). And it's obvious why, this is the main commercial value proposition (if you can build 2x faster, you need 50% as many devs).

Except that the speed only comes "for free" until a certain point. Beyond that point, you're trading off quality for more speed, and this trade is almost never worth it. If it takes you 6 months to handcraft a high quality version of your product (with selective AI assistance only until the boundary where it's not eating quality), almost always this is a better approach than banging out some heavily vibe/agent-coded crap in 1 month.

Why is this never a "we can make more products" conversation with businesses? It's always about how many people we can not pay versus how many more things we can sell.

I think this is very telling of where the message is coming from and how the tools are being sold.

Typically a good thing would be creating more value for a company's consumers, not increasing unemployment. Are these tools to make our lives better or to increase profits for shareholders without taking risks?