>and business expect the level of productivity witnessed before, will have no choice but cough up whatever providers bill us.

Is that bad? After all, even if they hiked to price infinity, you wouldn't worse off than if AI didn't exist because you could still code by hand. Moreover if it's really in a "business" (employment?) context, the tools should be provided by your employer, not least for compliance/security reasons. The "expectation" angle doesn't make sense either. If it's actually more efficient than coding by hand, people will eventually adopt it, word will get around and expectations will rise irrespective of whether you used it or not.

The insidious part is the thought that if you spend your limited learning and recall on AI Tools, then you wont be able to "still code by hand" because you'll have lost the skill, then there will be a local minima to cross to get back to human level productivity. Of course you'll get PIPed before you get back to full capacity.

This comment reads as trying on principle to defend the use of AI.

My argument was not about AI. Rather about the practice of Anthropic and the likes.

> if they hiked to price infinity, you wouldn't worse off than if AI didn't exist because you could still code by hand

This was addressed by the words that you perhaps mistakenly omitted from your quote:

> Once people won't be able to think anymore...

People who aren't able to think anymore, can't still code by hand. Think "Idiocracy".