Cant really understand if this is trolling or outright AI psychosis

I'm someone who uses tens of millions of tokens each month, almost exclusively with open weight models that I run on my own hardware. That said you are taking the wrong approach here, this type of mentality is only going to further radicalize those who have decided they're against this technology.

Additionally when the finally bubble bursts and the executives wake up from psychosis and look to distance themselves from this because it's become a dirty word, you'll be one of the first to go. The nail that sticks out gets hammered down and all that.

I do think there are real benefits and productivity gains with this technology, but it does not benefit everyone equally. It's great for the programming parts of my job, but useless in the other 40% of the work. I have coworkers for whom generative AI has no obvious practical application, and yet management is trying to find a way to shoehorn it in anyway. No doubt because they've also drank the kool-aid and are eager to reduce headcount.

This attitude of it making everything more productive and anyone who doesn't follow will be left behind is not just false, it's cruel and myopic. You're talking about people's livelihood being taken away because a handful of executives decided this is how things should work despite the MASSIVE number of shortcomings and poor product market fit.

Edit: I also almost missed where you're seemingly celebrating the devaluation of human labor as a result of this. Please stop and reflect on how your position may read to someone who is just trying to put food on the table.

What prompts you from posting this?

Useful reminder to new developers, anyone who label themselves as a "10x programmer" and brags about that, is someone you probably want far away from any collaborative projects or organizations where long-term productivity actually matters.

How much of that use is driven by corporate mandates to use AI anywhere and everywhere (even when it's a terrible fit)?

It's a retrospective analysis of an assertion made by NYTimes. The original headline wasn't clickbait, just presumptive, and even so, it's a pretty significant publication that spends a lot of time on the HN front page (alongside you, I'll add). I think it's perfectly fair, and nowhere close to a strawman, to deconstruct that claim a year later.