"How do we motivate people?" is sometimes the wrong question.
So is "how do we force people to work?"
Both questions can hide the harder management problem: the leader does not yet know whether the person is unclear, blocked, scared, lazy, miscast, or below the standard.
Those are different problems.
An unclear person needs a better definition of good work. A blocked person needs a real constraint removed. A scared person may need boundaries and examples. A miscast person may need a different role. A lazy person needs a consequence. A person below the standard may need coaching, and then a decision.
AI does not remove any of this. It makes it more visible.
When AI tools are available, the gap between willing learners and passive resistors widens. Some people will use the new leverage to improve their work. Some will need time. Some will use caution as a way to avoid changing. Some will use AI to produce more output while avoiding responsibility for whether the output is good.
Leaders need patience for learning. They do not need infinite patience for passivity.
The line is willingness.
A person can be behind and still worth betting on if they are asking good questions, taking ownership, and improving. A person can be early and still be a risk if they use tools carelessly, hide mistakes, or flood the team with unreviewed output.
Standards matter more when output is cheap.
The team needs to know what good looks like. It needs to know what must be checked. It needs to know when a draft is a draft. It needs to know that "AI made it" is never an excuse. The human who ships the work owns the work.
Ruthlessness has a bad reputation because people confuse it with cruelty.
Cruelty is personal. Ruthlessness, used correctly, is clarity about the standard and honesty about who is meeting it.
An AI-enabled team cannot be built on vibes alone. It needs support, coaching, tools, and training. It also needs the courage to say when someone is not adapting and the cost is being carried by everyone else.