Well, it's a nice thought-stopper by now, but IME it requires more and I can see the oldschool devs struggling with it every day.

Every once in a while I go "manual". It's restful and entertaining to write syntax by hand. It has this peculiar dare I say autistic delight, sorting the colored blocks and getting a little kick out of it. I understand the nostalgia but the progress is breathtakingly slow - as expected. You cannot do 6502 assembly by hand and expect to be fast in any meaningful sense of the word.

I usually juggle four, five active projects at a time and make days worth of manual progress on them in a morning. Support calls and colleagues questions interject occasionally. It's much more work than before, but I like it because dev work is super boring and now it's getting more interesting.

Like many people try to say AI is raising the bar. What we call normal software now will be childrens' toys tomorrow. The world expects ambitious projects, stuff that is hard and stands out.

I can't imagine a broad movement of devs using AI more thoughtfully without a widespread incentivisation from employers. And I can't imagine the latter at all. We'll probably just have to cope with more brittle/fragile codebases.

>we'll recalibrate eventually based on understanding what level of abstraction we can operate on...

This would be at the level of helper functions < 10 lines of code.

I doubt this if the patterns of tech/software over the last <x> years remain. We'll just get buggier, worse-functioning, more expensive products/software built by fewer, more burned out developers. But your manager will love the sales presentation, so all will be well.