The reason for this is: the only way to show productivity gains enabled by AI is to lay off people and pretend you are doing the same amount of work (while in reality you are severely dropping quality and accumulating technical debt).
The reason for this is: the only way to show productivity gains enabled by AI is to lay off people and pretend you are doing the same amount of work (while in reality you are severely dropping quality and accumulating technical debt).
I think that in these cases, what they need more than more engineering or AI productivity, is good management. Close issues that get shuffled around too much as "yeah this is too vague", or "nah we can't fix this", or "you know what, fuck you I'm not doing it".
Productivity gains can also be achieved by reducing scope. The coming issues will be that because of increased productivity (idea -> working code) that software is too bloated, does too much, that product managers will and can say "yes" to everything. Until it becomes unmanageable.
And that's not a new problem, it's what basically every programming adage / wisdom going back 70 years is about.
Also, when most work is unproductive, like managers shuffling around and relabeling issues, you can remove those managers without affecting output.
Quite possibly while improving output. Managers that are gone will not require attention from developers.