It is kinder than the alternative, which is to just keep raising expectations and letting people get walloped out of the blue.

Lots of companies otherwise basically let employees miss the train and then lay them off for it and then they are stuck searching for a job with no modern skills.

To me this is the warning. AI may or may not pan out, but if it does, you don’t get to say you were blindsided.

> but if it does, you don’t get to say you were blindsided.

It's absolutely a commodification of the engineers skills. The shape of this is that if they could, they would cut you out entirely.

So it looks that you will be drawing the short end of the stick at one point or the other.

>no modern skills.

I don't think using LLMs is a skill.

They probably assume a regular would log in.

Different definitions of programming.

OP defines it as getting the machine to do as he wants.

You define it as the actual act of writing the detailed instructions.

It is very difficult to get the machine to do what you want without the detailed instructions

If you have an LLM generate the instructions, then the LLM is programming, you're just a "prompter" or something. Not a programmer

Exactly. There's a probabilistic machine in between you and every instruction that gets executed, without exception. It's straight up different.

Im concerned that people are debating over this lol.

For one thing, you can test a lot more scenarios for very cheaply.

> I am going to try to make these points to my team, because I am seeing a huge influx of AI-generated PRs where the submitter interacts with CodeRabbit etc. by having Claude/Codex respond to feedback on their behalf.

Are people generally unhappy with the outcomes of this? As anecdotally, it does seem to pass review later on. Code is getting through this way.

It's slippery. You're swamped with low-effort PRs, can't possibly test and review all of them. You will become a visible bottleneck, and guess whether it's easier to defend quality vs. "blocking a lot of features" which "seem to work". If you're tied by your salary as a reviewer, you will have to let go, and at the same time you'll suffer the consequences of the "lack of oversight" when things go south.

The Board has decided that we can no longer afford artisanal, hand-crafted software, and that machine-made will suffice for nearly all use cases.

Enshittification Enterprise Edition.

The board wants their cake and eat it too.

They want AI to write all code but also still be able to fire humans for failure, because an AI can't be blamed right now.

Boy I can't wait for this employment norm. Fired because you weren't allowed to take the time to review important code but "You are responsible"

I wish Executives were required to be that "responsible"

Just reject a bunch of PRs two days before code freeze. They can go next sprint. In fact ask AI to provide a plausible reason for rejection. If anyone overrides, you are covered.

I would be surprised if we were not already close with Railroad Tycoon. Admittedly have not played the others.

slot machines are truly random. the rigging is in the pay table.

I am kind of already at that point. For all the complaining about context windows being stuffed with MCPs, I am curious what they are up to and how many MCPs they have that this is a problem.

Medical and defense, for regulatory and security reasons respectively.

> Parents reach a period in life where their kids strike out on their own and want little to do with them beyond a safety net. That’s normal and natural and the parents move onto a new phase too.

This is at best extremely cultural. It is certainly not a global norm and not really viewed as desirable, just necessary.

Average American doesn't move very far at all from their parents and America is where the idea of time limited parenting is most prevalent.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/12/24/upshot/24up-f...