I use AI heavily, so this isn’t about refusing to change.

You still have to understand the change yourself if you’re going to take responsibility for approving it.

That work is fundamentally much slower than generating the code, even with the help of AI.

We’ve made producing a large change extremely cheap and fast. We haven’t found an equivalent shortcut for building a correct mental model of what that change does, how it interacts with the rest of the system and whether the decisions behind it are actually sound.

Maybe one day we'll find one. As of today, I don’t think we have.

> * The engineer who refuses to change with the times

There is plenty of software in existence where being incorrect, even once, can spell disaster.

Everything about the picture being painted in the article is anathema to keeping such systems safe and reliable.