At work, all thinking has basically become discouraged.

If you are not using AI agents for everything, you're doing something wrong, and wasting company time. It has been emphasized that no one should be writing code by hand and if you think an AI has implemented something wrong you need solid reasoning to show why or else people just label you as some anti-AI troublemaker, who just becomes an obstacle standing in the way of things getting done.

If your human generated opinion is in any way wrong or simply not a true homerun then you get snubbed in future reviews, people stop listening to you.

▲

hyperpape 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> and if you think an AI has implemented something wrong you need solid reasoning to show why or else people just label you as some anti-AI troublemaker,

I'm going to read you charitably, and assume that what you really meant is "the burden of proof is entirely on you, and is set unreasonably high." Because of course, if you do think someone has done something wrong and want to say it publicly, you do need a solid reason.

▲

ThunderSizzle 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'm probably one of the heavier AI users for agentic workflows. I'm really enjoying it.

However, it doesn't take away the concern of architecture, design, etc. and questioning if the current solution is well designed or not.

In other words, if you can't question the AI and refute it in a topic, you aren't expert enough to use AI in that area in a engineering manner.

Granted, not everything needs an engineer behind it. A shack to store some tools will survive long enough probably

▲

vorticalbox 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I saw a post on here, basically they get ai to design the change and give them each each one at a time that they manually type in.

They argued this still allowed them to fully understand what has being implemented and how it fitted together.

I’ve been doing this since I read that and it also allows you to catch stupid stuff while your typing, you can reason about what each little change does and why it’s needed.

This also lets the LLM change the future of the plan if you fine something.

This turns out to save a whole bunch of time later because you already know how it works.

It’s not nearly as fast as just letting the agent do everything.

	▲	cfeduke 6 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I have been thinking about trying this approach. We really need something that's in-between, right? There's going to be code that is boilerplate implementation, and I don't need to drive that - like we have, in the before times, relied on macros and what not to do that work. But then the interesting logic, seeing the suggested implementation, copying or working from that. That's the sweet spot. I've also been thinking about the partner programming craze phase our industry went through. I write the test, you write the code; well I write the test, LLM satisfies with code. (Then we have less of these weird LLM generated test cases that test _nothing_. We can also use the LLM to suggest tests to complete coverage.) These would be slower to work this way, but the end result is: 1. humans still learn 2. you have a good grounding in how everything has been written
	▲	2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[deleted]

▲

Schiendelman 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

And more than anything, it doesn't take away the trade-offs of what to build to deliver value for customers, what to make the business improve, what avoids paging you on a vacation.

▲

j4yav 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

God help me, my manager (product director) has taken this approach for product strategy docs. Everything has become very stupid and extremely shallow. It’s easier than ever to coast, but man.. that’s not really what I wanted.

▲

as1mov 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Huh, I don't use AI much/or at all anywhere, apart from googling something and reading the Gemini answer before scrolling down, without facing any backlash. Though people are more likely to discuss and brainstorm their work/problems with me because of this, which I consider a positive. Maybe I've been lucky at where I work.

That is if I ignore the slop MRs with 60+ files changed that I have to painstakingly go through and then politely tell the author to fix the crater sized holes in it, while a vein in my forehead almost explodes. And some part of my sanity is lost forever.