[hypfer]

Some of us actually take the "engineering" in "software engineering" seriously.

That includes taking responsibility and accountability so that the software doesn't become a sad and dangerous mess.

If we want to be an engineering discipline, just yoloing in production is not going to cut it.

[deadbabe]

This no longer works when bad faith actors will push code straight from LLMs with little review, and respond to your comments with LLM responses. They will constantly leave you with the responsibility of verifying the output. You are the human in their loop. This is a brutal asymmetry. In the past, at least you knew a person probably spent more time handwriting code than you will spend reviewing it. This no longer applies, now the reviewer can easily spend more time than the author.

[hypfer]

Oh but it does.

The thing that makes it scale is to default to "no" and require the other party to convince you of "yes". Just put the burden of proof where it belongs. If they don't manage, then that's their problem.

Communicating this in a way that is viable for a business scenario certainly comes with its own difficulties, but that is a solvable problem.

In fact, you can use AI to stress test your communication there. Just throw what you want to say at the AI but don't tell it that it is you who wrote it. Then tune the input until it stops saying that you're the problem and starts agreeing with you.

Highly recommend. It's a perfect emotion-driven cargo-culting normie simulator that never calls HR on you.