This has been true for every heavily marketed development aid (beneficial or not) for as long as the industry has existed. Managing the politics and the expectations of non-technical management is part of career development.
I've heard exactly the same stories from my friends in larger tech companies as well. Every all hands there's a push for more AI integration, getting staff to use AI tools and etc., with the big expectation that development will get faster.
If we take the premise at face value, then this is a time management question, and that’s a part of pretty much every performance evaluation everywhere. You’re not rewarded for writing some throwaway internal tooling that’s needed ASAP in assembly or with a handcrafted native UI, even if it’s strictly better once done. Instead you bash it out in a day’s worth of Electron shitfuckery and keep the wheels moving, even if it makes you sick.
Hyperbole aside, hopefully the point is clear: better is a business decision as much as a technical one, and if an LLM can (one day) do the 80% of the Pareto distribution, then you’d better be working on the other 20% when management come knocking. If I run a cafe, I need my baristas making coffee when the orders are stacking up, not polishing the machine.
Caveats for critical code, maintenance, technical debt, etc. of course. Good engineers know when to push back, but also, crucially, when it doesn’t serve a purpose to do so.
(I know it because I'm in charge of maintaining all processes around LLM keys, their usages, Cursor stuff and etc.)
> I'm in charge of maintaining all processes around LLM keys
Does management look to you for insight on which staffers are appropriately committed to leveraging AI?