Indian firms push developers onto Cursor, sparking skill‑fade concerns
Indian firms are pushing developers onto Cursor, a move that’s sparking unease across tech teams. While the tool promises faster bug fixes, many engineers report a growing sense of dependence on a single prompt to keep an app running. The pressure isn’t just about speed; it’s about the craft of coding itself.
Here’s the thing: when a company mandates an AI assistant for everyday tasks, the line between augmentation and replacement can blur quickly. Adithya S Kolavi, founder of CognitiveLabs, openly encourages his staff to lean heavily on AI, arguing that the benefits outweigh the risks. Yet, the reality on the ground tells a different story.
Developers are beginning to question whether constant reliance on a generative model is eroding their core skills. That tension culminates in a candid confession from a team member who says, “I feel like my skills are fading and I hate working here because it feels like I’m one prompt away from either fixing the bug or ruining the app.”
I feel like my skills are fading and I hate working here because it feels like I'm one prompt away from either fixing the bug or ruining the app." Adithya S Kolavi, founder of CognitiveLabs, agrees that he encourages developers in his company to use AI tools as much as possible, as he believes that not being able to learn coding because of AI is simply wrong. "I started learning more when I started using AI to code," he told AIM. "There are things that I have already learnt, and in that scenario, I mainly review the code AI has written." "I would go as far as to say, if you are not using AI as a coding assistant in this age, it will be hard to catch-up with people who are," he said, adding that those who have recently started coding would benefit if they avoid using AI tools for every task. That post now sits among many others from Indian developers describing the same shift: AI-first workplaces where tools like Cursor, Copilot, and Gemini CLI are no longer optional.
Is mandating Cursor a sensible policy? Developers on r/developersIndia are voicing unease, saying their competence feels eroded under constant prompts. One full‑stack engineer described his workplace as a place where a single query could either fix a bug or break the app.
The company’s rule makes the tool compulsory for every engineer, and in some cases even asks staff to foot the bill. Such pressure blurs the line between assistance and dependence. Meanwhile, Adithya S Kolavi of CognitiveLabs openly promotes heavy AI‑tool usage, believing it accelerates work.
Yet the trade‑off between speed and skill retention is not clearly quantified. Critics worry that choice is being removed from the developer, a core principle of professional autonomy. It's unclear whether productivity gains offset potential long‑term degradation of coding expertise.
The debate highlights a tension: leveraging powerful assistants while preserving human proficiency. As more firms adopt similar mandates, the balance between tool reliance and skill preservation will likely shape future hiring and training practices.
Further Reading
- Indian employee claims startup made staff pay for AI tools calls it peak exploitation - India Today
- Cursor 2.0 Expands Composer Capabilities for Context-Aware Coding - InfoQ
- Papers with Code - Latest NLP Research - Papers with Code
- Hugging Face Daily Papers - Hugging Face
- ArXiv CS.CL (Computation and Language) - ArXiv
Common Questions Answered
What concerns are Indian developers expressing about the mandatory use of Cursor?
Developers on r/developersIndia report feeling their competence eroding, describing a sense of dependence on a single prompt that can either fix a bug or break the app. They worry that constant reliance on Cursor blurs the line between assistance and replacement, leading to skill‑fade.
How does Adithya S Kolavi describe his experience with AI tools like Cursor at CognitiveLabs?
Adithya S Kolavi, founder of CognitiveLabs, says he encourages developers to use AI tools extensively, believing that not learning coding because of AI is wrong. He also notes that he started learning more after adopting AI for coding, indicating a mixed view of its benefits and drawbacks.
In what ways does the article suggest that mandating Cursor could blur the line between augmentation and replacement?
The article explains that when a company requires every engineer to use Cursor for everyday tasks, the tool shifts from being a helpful assistant to a potential substitute for human judgment. This mandatory policy creates pressure to rely on a single prompt, making it hard to distinguish between genuine augmentation and outright dependence.
Are there any financial implications for engineers when their companies require the use of Cursor?
Yes, the article mentions that some firms not only make Cursor compulsory but also ask staff to foot the bill for the tool. This adds a financial burden on engineers, further intensifying concerns about forced dependence on AI assistance.