| The author puts the BLUF: "The actual bottlenecks were, and still are, code reviews, knowledge transfer through mentoring and pairing, testing, debugging, and the human overhead of coordination and communication." They're not wrong, but they're missing the point. These bottlenecks can be reduced when there are fewer humans involved. Somewhat cynically: code reviews: now sometimes there's just one person involved (reviewing LLM code) instead of two (code author + reviewer) knowledge transfer: fewer people involved means this is less of an overhead debugging: no change, yet coordination and communication: fewer people means less overhead LLMs shift the workload — they don’t remove it: sure, but shifting workload onto automation reduces the people involved Understanding code is still the hard part: not much change, yet Teams still rely on trust and shared context: much easier when there are fewer people involved ... and so on. "Fewer humans involved" remains a high priority goal for a lot of employers. You can never forget that. |