[bitwize]

Such an interlocutor was historically known as the systems analyst, but historically we've put programmers in that position, where they tend to do poorly.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/tail-wagging-dog-tim-bryce/

Systems analysis is about to make a roaring return, as the need for human programmers wanes thanks to LLMs generating all the code.

[noduerme]

I could definitely see myself moving into that role officially in a lot of places where I already unofficially am responsible for it, but I honestly don't know how I'd approach herding coders who were relying on LLMs to the point of not fully understanding the code-level interreliance of the systems themselves. I'd still find myself doing my current job, but with more cognitive load reading Claude code and trying to understand how these things were stitched together.

There's something to be said for attention, and the window of attention provided by a human who wrote something rather than an LLM that has to guess the intention of it, every time it reboots.

Any coder who understands what they're building could theoretically be a systems analyst for the greater part of what their code is going to be embedded in. This is a weakly referenced argument, but, dropping the lower links in the chain and substituting them with LLMs is exactly where I think communication is bound to break down. Or: You can try to herd cats all day, but if you move up the chain and all you have below you is cats relying on LLMs, you've just shifted the same problem up to your level in the organization.