That's an... interesting correlation they're making, more code = more money. I know it's not you personally making that comparison, but man is it strange. That's a very business school way of thinking.

What good is "more code" from the LLMs, if I have to scrutinize it for bugs and vulnerabilities? More code only means more surface area, more points of failure. And of the AI I've tried, every single one writes far far far too much code. And all that time in code review, QA, user acceptance testing, that absolutely does not make the company more money - it costs them more money, in paying for labor. And it doesn't get the product to the end user faster anyway.

I'm just ranting and this a minor point, but speed is also not the only metric I would care about. I'd also care about making sure the user doesn't experience many bugs - preferably no bugs at all. The classic engineer's triangle still holds: "Fast, Cheap, and Good: choose 2." And AI seems to pick "Fast" twice. XD

I mean, it makes sense - more AI use means code is being written faster

This AI you speak of - is it in the room with us right now? Because if you mean to say LLM slop machines, then "code is being written faster" does not imply the code is in any way useful.