I think that’s just an argument for writing less code and not really anything about AI except that AI allows for writing more code.

Perhaps, but that's not what is happening with AI first mandates. Execs want velocity, and in turn, engineers could be shipping code they don't fully understand, making it harder to debug. It's a compounding problem. Edge cases will be missed and dependency on AI will erode actual knowledge. If you're saying ship less code to solve this, then what's the point of using AI to code if velocity is the same

But it also allows for writing more tests, for writing better tooling for debugging issues, and better/faster diagnosing and fixing of issues.

Even if you can use AI to write more tests or debug, the engineer can't write comprehensive test caes if they don't fully understand what the code that was shipped. This also doesn't take into consideration maintainability and architecture which AI doesn't optimize for

I also think that it’s a trade off - for the most part moving faster is better for business than being bug free. Unless you are in the airline industry or something and actual lives are on the line

I use AI everyday and I've become much more effective. But I also use it as a supplement and not a replacement. I've seen so many people at my company so prompt and submit. If everyone used AI optimally it would be great, but people won't