[pillefitz]

This is such a simplistic view I have difficulties deciding where to even start. Think of a manager as someone who engineers the fabric of the organization. Most of my time is spent debugging, communicating, finding the right abstractions, configuring processes - all very similar to the engineering work I previously did.

[OutOfHere]

How would an investor see it? If an investor had access to a top-ranked management model, would s/he willingly spend 100x more on a person instead?

Or if you're saying you still do engineering/product work, then perhaps it shouldn't come with a management title. Whispering task allocation ideas to the AI is for everyone to do.

[aabdi]

The art of management - beyond the day to day operations - is largely organization of abstraction and incentives.

As we’ve collapsed the cost of the operations then largely the point of such an llm is constructing above.

If you’re an engineer why wouldn’t you pay more for better abstractions in an llm? That’s half the work anyways.

To put some more context into this: a manager defines the shape of a group of people. They own amorphous blob of responsibilities and various services. This leads to context confusion and lack of ownership and diffuse ability to operate services.

To fix the manager goes: Team a is responsible for say the device platform. Team b is for the applications platform. Each is responsible for their domain and the abstraction of team. Each is then responsible for their own ops, roi, quality, else. This attempts to maximize consistency of context, incentives, and scaling. Whether it works or not is frankly up in the air.

But notice this is basically the same as deciding in your intra service modularization and how you define the interfaces. Can you objectively say that whatever abstraction you usually write is correct? No. You just hope with experience and pragmatism.