Prior to this, building the software was, generally, one of the main constraints. If the business wants to do X, then it takes 3 months to build.
That means the business ideation and governance cycle (what do we want to do, are there customers, what do we charge) can take 3 months.
If you 10x thay development process then you also have to do the same with the business processes.
Once engineering teams have cleared the backlog, then burned through the decades of tech debt the constraints will switch. And how businesses react to that will be interesting.
Will it? Are you willing to test this?
>No one is laying off the development team that just chewed through 50 items per day for 3 straight weeks.
If there are no remaining items, or the amount of items processed per day has increased well above the amount of items that need processing every day, someone's certainly getting laid off.
>Who would support all the potential bugs they just created?
We have long criticised management for not caring about this. Now we are supposed to trust their good judgement?
I recently switched, but at my previous job, the PMs (who would typically do most of this work) got so overworked after AI took hold, that they’ve doubled the PM-to-dev ratios on all (the productive) teams.
I have read about this in other companies as well. Some teams in Google have a PM pr dev, I hear.
Where I work now, sh*t gets done MUCH quicker with AI, and to a higher quality as well.
IMO, if you work with software and can’t get a meaningful boost out of AI, I think you’re doing something wrong.
Nobody wants to lay off an employee that is pleasant to be around, trustworthy, and good at what they do.
If you're worried about this, your manager is probably either just as worried as you, OR is worried about your paradoxically low performance in an environment where low performers might be on the path towards switching industries. I mean that sincerely. You are probably damaging your own career and the lives of those around you more than you know.
So if I hire a painter who is pleasant to be around, trustworthy, and good at what they do, I'm not going to "lay him off" the instant he's done painting my house?
Some people view their job as having infinite things to do, and AI means they can work on more and different things.
Other people see their specific job as a series of tasks, and if AI does those they don't know what do anymore.
Guess who is going to stay employed?
If someone is deliberately stretching out a job and making it an adversarial business relationship, when the business arrangment is that they complete the project then do another job somewhere else, then I would not expect that to be a very successful strategy, and also not really want to help them in any way beyond existing contractual obligations. You are basically guaranteeing a bad working relationship with every employer you ever have.
And it doesn't make sense because this is not a strategy that's rational for someone who enjoys their work or is good at their job anyway - if that describes you, then your existing employer is probably one of if not the best advocate you have, and your best strategy would be to either switch careers or progress to a point you don't feel precarious
That's why I say you are really hurting yourself more than you know. You are guaranteeing an at-best "every boss dislikes me and my career goal is not getting fired" outcome and (idk about your actual employer) damaging relationships you really probably need (if this is your mindset)
I take an issue with that mindset because I know it is not true. And I'm not sure why you think I am attacking this person - if someone were to actually sandbag their own career, that is probably one of the most damaging mistakes they could make. Maybe I misunderstand something, if so I apologize for that
And I agree with the parent, because I read it every single day on HackerNews. If by this point you're still talking about LLMs not being able to write good code, you're not living in reality.
So, go ahead and keep talking about all the AI companies going bankrupt, or whatever other fantasies you're waiting for. But your teammates are getting tired of it.
It can if a single developer replaces a whole team.
You need to decouple it, but you dont need to remove it.
Why not say outright that "ideological friction" is about AI usage? Maybe some devops have friction cause when things break at 2am and they get called up they don't want to dig through 500k lines of slop the author can't explain?
And "empty 99% of the backlog everyday" <-> "hire more people to fix the bugs" is illogical. Reviewing slop and fixing bugs make me want to go build houses instead of software.
Meanwhile, back in reality, DevOps now have a tool to help them sort through the slop that already exists.
So, go build houses, nobody cares. But go ahead and try and slow their process down with "the way you like to do things", see how that goes.
This was a problem well before AI, but it doesn't get talked about enough because so many developers are hooked on the power trip they get from making people waste time on crap that has no relevance to the user.
In my experience, this has been senior engineering leaders and project managers more than anything.
The user is not just the person consuming the finished product