I agree writing completely new systems with LLMs is now near impossible to keep in your head, however, the onus is STILL on you the individual engineer. You are mistaken if you think that's changed.

So, if you're pooping out code, and committing it because tests still pass, and that's all you know, you're in for a treat. When an executive wants to know why a b0rked feature lost their department millions of dollars, guess who will have to answer for it, and its not the LLM.

My advice is to find ways to keep on top of how it all works, and if you're the only one who cares, well, then, that makes you even more valuable, not less.

> the onus is STILL on you the individual engineer. You are mistaken if you think that's changed.

In a lot of shops right now, this leads to an accountablility-authority gap. Where AI changes are merged in quickly without review and without my input, how can I be responsible for understanding the system? I can't. Its the same with reliability.

A lot of good engineers take it a a personal duty to understand the system and keep it up. The way a lot of businesses are using AI makes that impossible. And your job might just be cranking out features, with regard to little else.

I think this is what is stressing a lot of engineers out. It might be worth having a conversation with your boss about what you are actually accountable for. If your boss agrees you are not responsible for uptime, reliability, security, or even understanding the system you might find yourself much happier. If you your boss wants you to be accountable for those things, then you should feel empowered to ask for authority over the things that give you control of the outcome.