[codexon]

You can replace it with a much lower paid employee though.

[loloquwowndueo]

A lower paid and less qualified employee won’t be able to spot when the AI screws up.

Having a higher-paid, qualified employee supervising multiple AIs as the human only needs to spot for mistakes - maybe.

[codexon]

I'm not sure that's entirely true. For most things, checking if a solution is correct is much easier than implementing it (page looks wrong, can't login etc...)

[loloquwowndueo]

You’re looking at the end result, I’m looking at implementation. Engineering management, not QA.

[qudat]

You definitely cannot. Code org, architecture, and system design are senior level roles and responsibilities.

[codexon]

AI is already aware of the best practices. It does not just blindly do what you ask of it in the simplest way.

[saulpw]

Best practices are always situation dependent.

[codexon]

Claude code will prompt you and explain to you what practice fits a situation. It might not do it perfectly, but the foundations are there.

[singpolyma3]

That's not growth. Growth is having the existing employee do more.

[codexon]

I'm not arguing about growth. I was addressing this statement which seems to presume that AI has no effect if the job can't be removed.

> If AI can't do 100% of a job then you can't remove the job.