Every conversation about "best practice" with engaged engineers eventually hits the same wall: time, money, business goals. Ship it, fix it if it breaks. Engineers want the ideal code. Business wants the release.
AI is now sitting on that same fault line. It's buying us back time... but nobody's agreed what that time is for. Do we review the output properly, or just enough? Does it actually speed delivery, or just move the bottleneck somewhere less visible? And what happens to the juniors we used to bring up through the work AI now does for them?
I want to propose something small, and yes, one more entry in the TDD/BDD/DDD pile some of you already roll your eyes at:

PDD- Pride-Driven Development.

Not naive idealism... the money still has to be made. But if AI is genuinely handing engineers time back, why not make it policy to reinvest some of it into the code we've always wanted to fix, the tests we've always wanted to write, the 1,000-line class from 20 years ago nobody dares touch? Code we'd actually stand behind if a peer looked closely- or if an ITV drama came asking questions.

Drawing on 15+ years as a software engineering trainer and consultant, and a lot of very engaged arguments with engineers mid-training, I'll explore what happens when we let pride compete with profit instead of losing to it by default. And why, in the "10x engineer with AI" moment, we should write some of that story ourselves before the margins write it for us.

Because right now, every saved minute has two owners fighting over it: the sprint board and your conscience. PDD is just conscience getting a seat at the table and being given a name badge.