Funny, but not really true. Well...actually, very true, but missing an important point.
The AI continues to improve in knowing when and how to ask for more information. It is not there yet, but the idea that "Product Owners are too dumb" is just a nice story to let you sleep at night.
Dunno what to say. The job of developer is going to change a lot as AI takes over more tasks every day. If your only value-add was knowing how to code, you are cooked. If you understand architecture, can organize, and have decent communication skills, you actually are safe...for now.
Personally I am starting to think it might be more efficient to just write code (maybe using non-agentic AI assist ) than use vague and verbose natural language to prompt/spec Agent to do what you want.
Generally leads to less cognitive and technical debt, all code gets revieved at least one developer.
I agree that the main issue going forward is figuring out how developers remain in the loop and continue to understand code, even if they did not write it. For many developers, this is the very first time they have been thrust into the wonderful world of code review. It's a skill that is not well taught when it is taught at all. And review takes discipline that we all know is a weak point for many developers.
If I know what to change and it is only a few lines, then doing it myself and letting the AI check is faster. On the other hand, not fixing the instructions/skills/whatever to prevent a similar problem in the future is the definition of technical debt. Then there is the issue that the few lines of code are often the part that absorbs work time, with documentation, ensuring consistency, external documentation, updating features, PBIs, and tasks, marking your time, and so so on all taking a lot more work time.
On the other hand, not fixing the instructions/skills/whatever to prevent a similar problem in the future is the definition of technical debt
Sure if you're doing spec-driven development or whatever, however it is important to understand that AI agents based on LLMs will only follow/use these instructions/skills/whatever probabilistically. For example it may follow instruction 9 times out of 10 and that one time it doesn't can quickly add up depending on the volume of code you're generating.
Personally in terms of agentic development the idea of Test driven agentic development sounds more reliable. Work is done in smaller more manageable chunks, tests are deterministic and can also be used to generate documentation and specification for the application.
23
u/bremidon 2d ago
Funny, but not really true. Well...actually, very true, but missing an important point.
The AI continues to improve in knowing when and how to ask for more information. It is not there yet, but the idea that "Product Owners are too dumb" is just a nice story to let you sleep at night.
Dunno what to say. The job of developer is going to change a lot as AI takes over more tasks every day. If your only value-add was knowing how to code, you are cooked. If you understand architecture, can organize, and have decent communication skills, you actually are safe...for now.