I don't think it's implemented that harsh or enforced so hostile, but they have these rict procedures now on how the code is to be developed. That procedure they follow is all centered around automated code generation. So they simply... don't anymore in practice, it is not part of the job description so to speak. He wasn't happy I can tell, but also acknowledged it was working very well.
replyIt seems like just a CxO dick measuring exercise.
replyCEO1: "We allow our engineers to use AI for all work."
CEO2: "Oh yea? We mandate our engineers use AI for at least N% of their work!"
CEO3: "You think that's good? We mandate our engineers use AI for all code!!"
CEO4: "Pfff, amateurs. We don't even allow our engineers to open source code editors or even look at the LLM output..."
I also thought it was pushing it to the limit, but I think this is just some Founder of a successful company deciding engineering was going to transform to this way of working. A huge bet, but the implementation didn't feel amateuristic or ad hoc. Just not very pleasant for most devs to work that way. I'm sure some will look elsewhere. I know I would!
reply> That is extremely stupid. What does that ban get you?
replyconfidence in firing coders I presume..
They are hiring "architects", or do we call them analysts. The impression is we're going back to analysts drawing those pld school UML-like diagrams etc. Also, a lot of the devs are on the brink of just quitting, because it's "not programming" anymore. So, not only will you still need devs, or people massaging those specs, you'll also need enough "product" people to keep that engine fed! If your management isn't lazy, I can see the need for growing people count will continue to rise within such companies. That doesn't mean the work will be ...satisfying for devs.
reply