[SilverBirch]

I'm not sure some of this is a good idea. It reads a bit like "These LLMs are great! We can get rid of those pesky engineers!". It reminds me of the xkcd[1] about how some problems are trivial and some are almost impossible and as a layman you don't know which is which. That's more true than ever will LLMs, everything is new and so very few people actually know what is easy and what is hard. When you say "You can go off and do this without engineers and use AI to help you" what you are actually saying is "You can go and be a bad engineer". That's fine, if you don't have any engineers, then that's probably the best option. But if you're sensible probably a 5 minute conversation with someone who knows what they're talking about is more useful. In my experience as an engineer, the people who do jobs related to my job and think they can do my job: are crap at my job, generally not that good at their own either, and very difficult to work with.

I think the more interesting question for the PM is how are you going to make a differentiated product in the market if everything you're planning to build is trivial? If it's not trivial, maybe talk to an engineer or two.

[1]:https://xkcd.com/1425/

[zarathustreal]

Well I think it’s as simple as P vs NP. This is the primary difficulty with AI and always will be. Solutions are easy to get AI to construct. The difficulty is in verifying those solutions. This can be seen in industry even now, evals are the hardest part of non-trivial AI systems

[ben_w]

I agree, but I think this also forms part of the solution: try to always ask the AI to create things which are easy to verify.