First off, I just one to say that while I'm strongly on the other side of this argument, and in favor of heavy AI use for dev work, I really appreciated the article and the way it makes its case.

My main point of contention is really with this:

> House House is not a studio that couldn't afford to hire a specialist for a few days to look into this problem.

I don't understand why there's this expectation that we have to throw people at every problem. Let's say that a dev faced with a difficult technical challenge in an area that they're not familiar with had instead gone to a library, and came out of it after 5h with a solution. Or alternatively, that they googled it and by having rolled the proverbial critical hit found an obscure blog post from 2005 with the exact solution to their problem. Would there really be a big difference? Why should we pay each other to do stuff for us that we can easily do with tools at a fraction of the time and cost?

Can anyone make a strong argument against using AI for dev work that would not immediately lead to needing to bring back all the elevator operators?