I think parent is saying "% of code being generated by AI" is not a generally good, direct metric for business value. It's akin to the "we are pushing SO MUCH CODE" phase of early ai marketing.
If we're trying to measure the value of adopting tool, it's probably better to measure the ROI of that tool rather than the usage % of that tool, especially when usage is basically mandated.
To directly answer your questions:
1. You're being paid to create value for the business, which "doing what they think is productive" is a proxy for. You're not being paid to use a tool a high % of the time.
2. I doesn't seem like parent even commented on the quality of the code generated. I think anyone that uses it regularly can agree that: a) the code is not useless and
b) all generated code is not immediately production ready c
) AI generation of code is an accelerant for software development
I really do feel like AR is the future, moreso than VR.
As technologists we have a tendency to want to build our own world instead of integrate into the real world. It's understandably easier/cleaner, but it strips out all the richness of the real world.
Maybe I'm getting old but I want a game that brings real people together. There are more than enough "get everyone together virtually" games.
I want a game that actually reinforces the social fabric instead of simulates it. Something that encourages people to be together in the physical world (gasp!), have fun, have shared experiences/goals/challenges, and form lasting friendships.
I have very fond memories of lugging my computer (and CRT!) to my friends/family's house to have a LAN + pizza party. The best part for me wasn't necessarily the game itself. The games were fun but I really enjoyed the social aspect of talking about a tough dungeon or strategizing how to beat a challenging opponent.
It seems like the industry is trying its best to bring people into a simulated world but why not use games to bring people together into it instead?
Pokemon Go is probably the closest thing to this I've seen recently but the core gameplay was unfortunately pretty boring when it first started and became popular.
If we're trying to measure the value of adopting tool, it's probably better to measure the ROI of that tool rather than the usage % of that tool, especially when usage is basically mandated.
To directly answer your questions:
1. You're being paid to create value for the business, which "doing what they think is productive" is a proxy for. You're not being paid to use a tool a high % of the time.
2. I doesn't seem like parent even commented on the quality of the code generated. I think anyone that uses it regularly can agree that: a) the code is not useless and b) all generated code is not immediately production ready c ) AI generation of code is an accelerant for software development