So many efforts out there to alter the usage of the tool to regain control, when it's clear to me that the tool is the problem?

By which I mean, we should -- as software engineers -- be insisting on tools that put us in the driver's seat more.

Instead we're letting the agent drive. (I'm as guilty as this as anybody). But really we're letting Dario, Sam, Boris, etc. drive. And it should be clear from their public pronouncements and emissions that they don't have the best interests of our profession -- or the quality of software engineering generally -- in mind.

Yes, certainly, alter how you use the tools. But we need to fix the tools themselves.

▲

coldtea 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

>By which I mean, we should -- as software engineers -- be insisting on tools that put us in the driver's seat more.

And the company says "fuck you then, I'll fire you, and keep fewer coders, willing to keep the AI dance".

The role of AI as a tech is to put you out of the drivers seat as much as possible. All the way to job elimination.

Solution?

▲

cmrdporcupine 2 hours ago | parent [-]

And by doing that said companies are devaluing their own IP and creating an organizational knowledge debt. Companies that work that way will in long run get outcompeted by shops that figure out (I don't know how) how to manage this better.

	▲	coldtea 14 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		What's worse, companies might be fine with "devaluing their own IP", since companies are not deciding, execs are. And those execs will get their bonuses anyway, and will be drinking their champagne far away from their executive roles and the company by the time that's felt.

▲

yondys 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That's an interesting idea, but if the tools are really the problem, is there an actual way that we can solve this? How?