It's not about delivery of software, it's about avoidance of learning based on mediocrity of AI. I.e. original post literally brings LLMs being poor at suggestions for Rust as a reason to avoid it.
That implies that proponents of such approach don't want to pursue learning which requires them to do something that exceeds the mediocrity level set by the AI they rely on.
For me it's obvious that it has a major negative impact on many things.
Your premise here being that any software not written in Rust must be mediocre? Wouldn't it be more productive to just figure out how to evolve LLM tooling to work well with Rust? Most people do not write Rust, so this is not a very compelling argument.
Rust is just an example in this case, not essential to the point. If someone will evolve LLM to work with Rust better, it will still be mediocre at something else, and using this as an excuse to avoid it is problematic in itself, that's what I'm saying.
Basically, learn Rust based on whether it's helping solve your issues better, not on whether some LLM is useless or not useless in this case.
That implies that proponents of such approach don't want to pursue learning which requires them to do something that exceeds the mediocrity level set by the AI they rely on.
For me it's obvious that it has a major negative impact on many things.