This is an incredibly weird view to me. If I borrow a hammer from my neighbor, although I don’t own the hammer, it doesn’t suddenly make the hammer not a tool. Associating a tool with the concept of ownership feels like an odd argument to make.
You cannot manually train it for your case.
You cannot tell it to not touch particular parts of your project either. It will stomp over all of the code.
You cannot even easily detect this tool has been used except for typical failures.
The tool may also leak your secrets to some central database. You cannot tell it to not do that.
(If you try either tack of those, it will lie to you that it complied while actually not doing that at all.)
When your networking fails, the tool does not work. It's fragile in all cases.
I've never seen so many false assumptions in one place.
These are hooked up to control theory algorithms based on aggregate and regional KV and prompt cache load. This is true of both fixed and per-token billing. The agent will often be an asset at 4am but a liability at 2pm.
You get experiment segmented always, you get behavior scoped multi-armed badit rotated into and out of multiple segment categories (an experiment universe will typically have not less than 10000 segments, each engineer will need maybe 2 or 3 and maybe hundreds of arms per project/feature, so that's a lot of universes).
At this stage of the consumer internet cycle its about unit economics and regulatory capture and stock manipulation via hype rollercoaster. and make no mistake about what kind of companies these are: they have research programs with heavy short-run applications in mind and a few enclaves where they do AlphaFold or something. I'm sure they created an environment Carmack would tolerate at least for a while, but I gibe it a year or two we saw that movie at Oculus and Bosworth is a pretty good guy, he's like Jesus compared to the new boss.
In this extended analogy about users, owners, lenders, borrowers and hammers, I'd be asking what is the hammer and who is the nail.