I disagree. A good developer that heavily uses AI just becomes average without realizing it. To remain a good programmer you have to keep actually programming.
Because I reject the premise that "heavy use" automatically makes a developer lazy, and I reject the premise that code is the most important output of a developer, I actually think you're agreeing with me, you just don't realize it. If a developer sees AI as the kind of tool that allows them to lean into laziness, then you're right: they'll be average.
BUT, if you agree that code isn't the real value of a developer and you concede that AI can be used purely as a tool, then I think you must agree with my statement that it will make you _more_ of what are already are. It will exaggerate what is already there. That's exactly my point.
I disagree. A good developer that heavily uses AI just becomes average without realizing it. To remain a good programmer you have to keep actually programming.
Because I reject the premise that "heavy use" automatically makes a developer lazy, and I reject the premise that code is the most important output of a developer, I actually think you're agreeing with me, you just don't realize it. If a developer sees AI as the kind of tool that allows them to lean into laziness, then you're right: they'll be average.
BUT, if you agree that code isn't the real value of a developer and you concede that AI can be used purely as a tool, then I think you must agree with my statement that it will make you _more_ of what are already are. It will exaggerate what is already there. That's exactly my point.