In recent years, AI-powered coding tools (such as code-completion assistants and generative AI) have rapidly been adopted in software development workflows. While many developers view these tools as productivity enhancers, there’s also growing concern that not opting-in to their use is increasingly being treated as risky or unacceptable in some workplaces.
Some organizations are mandating AI tool usage—developers who resist are sometimes viewed as under-performing or not keeping pace with modern workflows. On the flip side, other developers express that they prefer to retain autonomy over when and how AI is used: they worry about over-reliance, loss of skill development, or the ethical and data-privacy implications of using AI in their work. Surveys show that although tool usage is high, trust in AI’s outputs remains low, and many still favour human oversight.
The article argues that preserving choice is important for several reasons: it respects developers’ professional judgment, allows for the contexts where AI may not be appropriate (e.g., sensitive code, proprietary logic, or novel problems), and helps avoid a one-size-fits-all mandate that could lead to unchecked dependency. It emphasises that opting out should not be penalised, but rather respected as a legitimate stance.
In conclusion, while AI tools are becoming a powerful component of the developer toolbox, the shift toward expecting mandatory AI usage raises concerns. The piece calls for organisations to design policies that ensure: informed consent, transparent tool-implications, skill-maintenance pathways for developers, and the right to choose whether, when and how to integrate AI into one’s workflow. That way, better balance is achieved between augmentation and autonomy.
