Indian firms push developers onto Cursor, sparking skill‑fade concerns
Indian firms are nudging developers onto Cursor, and it’s already causing a ripple of unease in many tech teams. The tool does seem to speed up bug fixes, but a growing number of engineers say they feel tethered to a single prompt just to keep an app alive. It isn’t only about getting things done faster; it feels like a shift in the very craft of coding.
When a company makes an AI assistant part of the daily workflow, the line between help and takeover can get hazy fast. Adithya S Kolavi, founder of CognitiveLabs, tells his staff to lean heavily on AI, insisting the upside outweighs the downside. Still, on the ground the vibe is different.
Developers are starting to wonder if constant reliance on a generative model is chipping away at their core skills. One team member put it plainly: “I feel my skills are fading and I hate working here because it feels like I’m one prompt away from either fixing the bug or breaking 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.
Mandating Cursor feels like a risky move to a lot of folks on r/developersIndia. Some developers say the constant prompts are chipping away at their confidence. One full-stack engineer even joked that a single query could either fix a bug or bring the whole app down.
Their company now forces every engineer to use the tool, and in a few cases the staff have to cover the cost themselves. That kind of pressure makes it hard to tell where help ends and reliance begins. On the other side, Adithya S Kolavi of CognitiveLabs is pretty vocal about using AI tools heavily, arguing it speeds up work.
The exact trade-off between speed and keeping skills sharp isn’t really measured yet. Critics point out that taking the choice away from developers clashes with the idea of professional autonomy. It’s still unclear if the productivity boost outweighs a possible long-term dip in coding expertise.
The conversation shows a real tension: we want powerful assistants, but we also need to keep our own skills alive. If more companies follow suit, how they balance tool reliance with skill upkeep could shape hiring and training for years to come.
Related Reading
Business & Startups Oracle, NVIDIA deepen tie-up to speed sovereign AI and government digital shift
Business & Startups Skilling programs lag AI; students must prioritize aspiration and depth
Business & Startups EPAM and Cursor partner to scale AI coding for global enterprise customers
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.