> It's not just the time it takes to make the feature, you also have to consider documenting the feature, making sure it works well with the other features, making sure it's something customers actually want, making sure it's part of a larger coherent design, training customers, marketing the feature, etc.

Seems like a conflation of responsibilities. An IC that implements a feature is rarely the same person who decided on the feature to build in the first place. This is really only true in exceptionally small teams where everyone wears multiple hats. If a programmer is also doing marketing, they're basically a sole proprietor. Since most people work with others who make product and marketing decisions, I don't feel like this line of thinking is relevant.

Consider programming with a dumb text editor (no syntax highlighting, no integrated build/test/run cycle, no symbol/reference tracking, no auto-complete) and an IDE. The magnitude in performance or efficiency between that and the difference between programming with an IDE and programming with AI is relatively similar. Sure, the AI can do more than the IDE in absolute terms, but it's not going to be training customers or doing your architectural planning. (At least, I sincerely hope not -- not yet, anyway.)

That's my perspective on the "10x myth". AI isn't 10x, just as dumb editor to IDE wasn't 10x. It's only a modest improvement.

> The way this stuff is hyped and pushed has an air of extreme desperation. If it was so good people wouldn't need so much convincing!

You can ignore the hype. I ignore every advertisement I reasonably can. It doesn't matter who's peddling, it's always toxic.

But more than that, people do need convincing. Entrenchment, momentum, and bureaucracy make it nearly impossible to change anything. That, in turn, leads to the well-known adoption curve. You're using AI, you're an early adopter. The marketing and hype are there to chip away at the friction keeping the adoption curve from an early majority.