> The PMs validate it, why do you think they don't read over it to make sure it fits what they want?

The PM has historically often not had a detailed enough mental model of the implementation to spot the hard parts in advance or a detailed enough mental model of the customer desires to know if it's gonna be the right thing or not.

Those are the things that killed waterfall.

You can use LLM tools to help you improve both those areas. Synthesizing large amounts of text and looking for inconsistencies.

But the 80th-percentile-or-lower person who was already not working hard to try to get ahead of those things still isn't going to work any harder than the next person and so won't gain much of a real edge.

I'm glad you mentioned it and TFA briefly mentioned waterfall. The second graph shown in the article with documentation overlapping the dev cycle, it's like the worse of both agile and waterfall. It's supposedly real-time waterfall.

Normally waterfall works where the scope is extremely-well defined and articulated in design plans. Which shortens dev time because prior to AI code was mostly deterministic. Here we have to do waterfall level of documentation while iterating on a non-deterministic solution (code gen) to non-deterministic requirements (per usual).

It's bonkers.

I still think the technology is cool though.

And to answer the questioner.. Have you worked with a PM? Most of the ones I've worked with try to be simultaneously in charge yet not responsible for anything. Validating something implies skill and responsibility.

Then they're just bad PMs and don't deserve to have the job. That can be said in any profession, devs or lawyers or doctors who blindly accept LLM output without review are bad employees.