upvote
Most product managers are in danger right now. Product engineers are more valuable and now have more time for product work now that the LLMs can crank changes faster than users can tolerate...
reply
Agreed. The implication is, get really good at defining acceptance criterion.
reply
Kind of, except as product manager you're held accountable for delivering the right product, while your engineering team is held accountable for things like performance, incidents, and security issues caused by their code.

It's hard to hold an LLM accountable for anything.

reply
Accurate but manageable. Just like a pm works with properties an engineer also does. The Product person wants to deliver the right product properties so they model their process around identifying the ones they want and then creating the right framework to get them. On the engineering side its the same thing. Define what you want, give agents an environment they can succeed in, iterate.
reply
What nonsense! If a product manager ships something that breaks then the software engineer who submitted the code gets the blame!

Software engineers are always responsible for their code except now they have to be responsible for Claude's code

reply
Software engineers are always responsible for their code except now they have to be responsible for Claude's code

Which is - of course - absurd. Accepting responsibility without demanding the corresponding authority is a fool's game.

I have never been much of an advocate for unionisation in the software development industry. I didn't think it was necessary to protect the interests of the workers because for most of the industry's history the workers have largely been able to stand up for themselves anyway. Likewise I've never been a big believer in accreditation and licensing practitioners in our field - because who is qualified to judge someone else worthy in such a young industry with so little hard data about what works or doesn't work? I find my views on these subjects are evolving now.

It's not about protecting jobs if they truly aren't needed any more or protecting people working in the industry who refuse to move with the times. The Luddite philosophy isn't going to get us anywhere here. And besides - if AI is as effective as its advocates have been claiming then there should soon be more demand for capable developers to take advantage of the new opportunities. (The Jevons Paradox is relevant here.) But it is about protecting standards. If the tools aren't doing a good enough job then expecting professional developers to ship the code produced by those tools even though they know it's junk is something that needs to be challenged. And if developers are being expected to ship anything important without having the slightest idea whether it even works then that's even worse.

We had a lot of silliness going on when the very low interest rates and huge amounts of VC funding were propping up ideas and practices that would never have survived otherwise. Today we have a different kind of funny money distorting the industry but it's still propping up ideas and practices that we wouldn't normally support or perhaps even tolerate. And just like before no individual is going to be able to hold back the tide and it's going to have to be a collective effort to push back - hence my evolving views on topics like unionisation and accreditation. We've all seen the drop in quality across much of the industry and we all know why it's really happening because we see how the sausage is now being made.

reply
Not all mistakes are code, a lot are feature design mistakes, and if SWEs would always be responsible about PM mistakes, then why not use Claude anyway?
reply
Oh, don't worry. Someone is also blaming the product manager!
reply