If I'm managing a company of about 10 people to do something in the physical world, I'd probably skip the PM & QA and hire the engineer and have the engineer task the LLM with QA given a clear set of requirements and then manage the projects given a clear set of deadlines.A good SE can do a "good enough" job at QA and PM in a small company that you won't notice the PM & QA is missing. But the PM & QA can always be added or QA can be augmented with a specialist assuming you're LLM-driven.

Of course if none of your software projects are business-critical to the degree that downtime costs money pretty directly then you can skip it all and just manage it yourself.

The other thing you should probably understand is that the feedback cycle for an LLM is so fast that you don't need to think of it in terms of sprints or "development cycles" since in many cases if you're iterating on something your work to acceptance test what you're getting is actually the long pole, especially if you're multitasking.

> If one of the three, {PM, QA, coder}, was replaced by AI, as a customer I'd prefer to pick the team missing the coder.

I am curious: why? In all my years of career I've seen engineers take on extra responsibilities and doing anywhere from decent to fantastic job at it, while people who tend to start much more specialized (like QA / sysadmins / managers) I have historically observed struggling more -- obviously there are many and talented exceptions, they just never were the majority, is my anecdotal evidence.

In many situations I'd bet on the engineer becoming a T-shaped employee (wide area of surface-to-decent level of skills + a few where deep expertise exists).

> The PMs and QAs I know would disagree with that assessment.

It just depends on the org structure and what the org calls different skills. In lots of places now PM (as in project, not product) is in no way a leadership role.