I'm fully into agentic coding, and I'm actively studying agent reliability. I can make all kinds of deterministic guarantees about agentically produced code, but no, I would not accept either of these, or many other examples.

We write code (or we used to, before AI), so we naturally value that. But the code is one small part of a deployed system, and this has always been the case. Numerous studies have shown that writing the code is actually the cheapest part.

All the most important things that you need to know about what makes the code correct, both before it is written and after it is deployed, are not in the specs. They come from walking around and talking to people. Looking them in the eye, sussing out what their real requirements are, and figuring out how to address their concerns with empathy.

Until LLMs can do that, I'm not worried. Let them write the code, that's the least important part.

LLMs do not replace jobs, managers constantly try to increase profit. Managers and business owners try to replace people’s jobs via automation.

LLM companies actively try to convince managers and business owners that LLMs are capable of replacing humans in white collar jobs.

An LLM/AI will not replace you, or me.

A business owner or manager might. They also might use an LLM to make decisions.

But let’s not use language which anctively obscures the decision makers in this process.

My job is safe.

The stuff I document is happening offline behind closed doors. I create tools and leverage my contacts and audience to surface that information.

Then LLMs suck up that information and serves it to users without attribution or consent, and that is destroying the economics of doing my job.

But the job still needs to be done.

Who is the best possible person you could hire to operate the LLM?

Who has a good mental model of what its doing underneath and has the best expertise to direct/guide it?

IMO no one is better positioned to use these tools than software engineers

I'm so tired of hearing about AI.