> The only thing standing in the way of greedy hype chasing CEOs and a post apocolyptic wasteland is ...

Nothing.

Either you quit outright, or ride the flames to the bottom, depending on personal ethics to cash-out potential ratio.

It's not an engineer's job to fix upper management delusions, and engineering is poorly equipped for that in any case.

> It's not an engineer's job to fix upper management delusions, and engineering is poorly equipped for that in any case.

What is the job of engineering leadership in your mind then, if not to take requirements from the business and convert them into technical solutions which improve things for the business? The requirement here was "AI to improve DX" the outcome was developers lives are worse in many creative and future impacting ways.

I sincerely would love to know if the author or their employer consider what they've done as successful or not.

▲

lstodd an hour ago | parent [-]

If the requirements are self-contradicting while at the same time being non-negotiable their job is to quit.

▲

1dom an hour ago | parent [-]

So we agree on what their job is, but you're saying that if their job becomes impossible, they should quit, and I agree.

Do you think the author of the original article should have quit, rather than tried?

	▲	lstodd 31 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Early 2024 being assigned to "GenAI DX"? I would have interpreted that as being politely shown the door and quit at the spot.