zlacker

>>tablet+(OP)
I have one very specific retort to the 'you are still responsible' point. High school kids write lots of notes. The notes frequently never get read, but the performance is worse without them: the act of writing them embeds them into your head. I allegedly know how to use a debugger, but I haven't in years: but for a number I could count on my fingers, nearly every bug report I have gotten I know exactly down to the line of code where it comes from, because I wrote it or something next to it (or can immediately ask someone who probably did). You don't get that with AI. The codebase is always new. Everything must be investigated carefully. When stuff slips through code review, even if it is a mistake you might have made, you would remember that you made it. When humans do not do the work, humans do not accrue the experience. (This may still be a good tradeoff, I haven't run any numbers. But it's not such an obvious tradeoff as TFA implies.)

>>pie_fl+33
This level of knowledge is nearly impossible to maintain as the codebase grows though, beyond one or two people at a typical company. And tools need to exist for the new hire as well as the long-standing employee.

>>tablet+r4
Welcome to project architecting, where the job isn't about putting more lines of code into this world, but more systems in place to track them. A well layered and structured codebase can grow for a very long time before it becomes too hard to maintain. And generally, the business complexity bites before the algorithmic one, and there's no quick fix for that.

>>ezst+u6
It's cultural too. I've heard people say along the lines "we don't ship the org chart here" in a positive light, then in a later meeting complain that nobody understands what's going on in their owner-less monorepo.

Shipping the org chart isn't the only way to solve this problem but it is one that can work. But if you don't acknowledge the relationship between those problems, AGI itself probably isn't going to help (partially sarcastic).