> AI cannot be held accountable.

And this unaccountability is transitive. The amount of time I've seen people successfully justify issues based on the fact that Claude/Astra/Codex wrote it is absurd. And it comes from the top.

We've had AI ship made up data to clients and tech leadership was like, "haha, that's AI for you."

> If you’re toying around, LLMs do a great job.

This too. We have a lot of business guys that develop tools with Claude that look like they work, then tech team gets pressure to deploy them immediately, because they assume that everything must be a prompt away. It's not (though, we do have some wizards on the team who make this true enough).

> AI overdose is a thing and it directly puts an expiration date on your skill set.

Agreed. But I'm not in a position to push back. It's not just managers, but tech leadership who are all in that on the fact that humans shouldn't program anymore. I still fully believe that I'm better than Claude / Astra in my specific domain, but people give me a hard time when my PRs contain what look to be human-generated code.

Overall, I agree with the article, but I'm still pretty sure I'm falling behind in my apprehension to fully trusting Claude/Astra and not giving into the approach of burning millions of tokens daily to generate PRs so large they break github (two of which I approved today).