> I find it interesting to watch as some of the most well-known software developers at the major AI labs note how their jobs are changing from mostly programming to mostly management of AI agents.

"AI labs"

Can we stop this misleading language. They're doing product development. It's not a "laboratory" doing scientific research. There's no attempt at the scientific method. It's a software firm and these are software developers/project managers.

Which brings me to point 2. These guys are selling AI tooling. Obviously there's a huge desire to dogfood the tooling. Plus, by joining the company, you are buying into the hype and the vision. It would be more surprising if they weren't using their own tools the whole time. If you can't even sell to yourself...

Commercially driven R&D labs have been around for a long time. Much of research and development has never followed the "scientific method". There's nothing wrong with calling the current set of AI companies "labs" when referring to their research efforts. And their researchers are putting out plenty of academic papers, sharing plenty of research results, so it's not like there's any level of rigor that is lacking.

I don't know why you're trying to suggest some kind of restriction on the word "lab", or based on what. Calling them "labs" is perfectly normal, conventional, and justified terminology.

AI works best when you’re selling it (author fits in this category as well).