Some people are good enough that they'll do well on performance reviews anyway, and if there's a new technology that's acting as a force multiplier those are exactly the people who the company most wants to adopt it.
Fair point about comparing performance reviews. It's also practically impossible to judge someone's performance on novel tasks, or whether they're caring enough about tech debt. Even as I wrote my first post there was a nagging voice in my head saying "Almost no one does performance reviews well enough for that".
In my (limited) experience, the tasks you want to assign to elite devs are less amenable to AI in the first place.
Perhaps then they should focus on getting their 0.1x developers using it to get competent rather than trying to get their 1x developers to 10x using it.
Interesting point. If eleven 1x developers multiply their productivity by 10, that's roughly the same as one 10x developer doing the same. Assuming of course that such quantities can be meaningfully applied.
