There's more code to read as unskilled or sleepy developers push tons of sloppy changes. The code works, mostly, So either one loses more time chasing subtle issues or one yolos the approvals to have time for one's own coding workload.
I don't understand how your comment relates to what I've been responding to.
>> I know many who have it on from high that they must use AI. One place even has bonuses tied not to productivity, but how much they use AI.
> How does maximizing AI use prevents developers from reading their code?
In my mind developers are responsible for the code they push, no matter whether it was copy pasted or generated by AI. The comment I responded to specifically said "bonuses tied not to productivity, but how much they use AI". I don't see that using AI for everything automatically implies having no standards or not holding responsibility for code you push.
If managers force developers to purposefully lower standards just to increase PRs per unit of time, that's another story. And in my opinion that's a problem of engeneering & organisational culture, not necessarily a problem with maximizing AI usage. If an org is OK with pushing AI slop no one understands, it will be OK with pushing handwritten slop as well.
