The complexity stuff is all absolutely true.<p>However I think it's aggrandizing what human engineers actually do with remarks like "Engineers own tradeoffs." My experience is that certainly less than half of the employed software engineers don't actually give a real analysis to questions like:<p>"Given these constraints, this team, this business, this infrastructure, this budget, these risks, and the expected evolution of the product, what is the most appropriate way to implement X, today?"<p>Thus I think AI is more able to replace the average engineer more than this article admits, however the inadequacy of "average engineering" will be much more apparent now: codebases can become large/complex enough to be unwieldy in months now when it used to take 5 years [a timescale where accountability is effectively impossible].
Lost me at the first assumption. People can argue about how useful AI is, but it's obviously not essential because we somehow managed to write code without it a few years ago. I would even say the code was better back then.<p>The two tasks of writing code and engineering software cannot be separated without damaging the integrity of the mental model of the engineer. Having architects who didn't interact with the code always produced map/territory mismatches.
Sadly many managers decided to do so and the damage is done<p>I love to say that<p><pre><code> Some managers didn't pass the Turing test</code></pre>
We built houses before we had nailguns but now that we have them they're pretty essential to building a house.
Have you looked at the machine instructions your compiler produces?<p>No? Why?<p>Because software languages are a pretty good abstraction.<p>To the extent that good abstractions are in place, you can avoid looking at code specifically.<p>Those don't perfectly well exist, so it takes a lot of self discipline and the right tools/methods, but invariably, AI will produce better systems.<p>That said, its very easy to produce slop, so well see much more of it.<p>But mostly, it will be AI from here on in, as a matter of productivity. There are some arguments on the margins but those will fade over the next few years.<p>'At minimum' - the 'power tools' are here to stay.
AI can also generate the architecture for you based on the requirements, and ask the necessary clarifying questions.<p>It's not as good at system design as writing code, yet. But it feels like it's better than most of my coworkers.<p>I think in a few months, system architecture will have its Claude Code moment, and humans will be outclassed.
I don’t know, I could be wrong but I think one of the key aspects of system design which I don’t know if there is a lot of training data for us the “why” behind decisions. Separating out good design from bad isn’t always black and white and like the article mentions it’s about managing complexity and trade offs. It’s hard to capture in code/training data “we designed everything in a certain way but compromised in this one area because we were under time constraints and assumed we could fix it later”<p>A fun little exercise you can do is design a system and write some code and then ask LLM to explain why you wrote it that way. Results are varied and interesting but in my experience rarely capture the actual why behind decisions.
I started to look around the site and opened this:
<a href="https://hack8s.com/409/ziglings-all-exercises-solve-v0-16-0" rel="nofollow">https://hack8s.com/409/ziglings-all-exercises-solve-v0-16-0</a><p>The site just goes into a reload loop on iOS?
Thanks, might be the best blog I've read in 2026. AI can of course do architecture as well but oh boy will you have a bad time when your application breaks and neither you or AI can fix it.
One question missing from the list, and it’s the first one I tend to ask… do we really need this? I’m not sure I’ve ever seen an agent pushing back on a request.
You can tweak them to do so. I personally tweak mine to act like a disappointed stack exchange veteran.<p>I personally recommend, but I understand many people do not want to be pushed back by something they see as little more than a servant.<p>This setup does work to also have agents argue with each other. That can be very interesting, though you have to set them up to be very skeptical. Otherwise they will tend to read another agents assertion as authoritative off the bat.<p>I am convinced much of the harness/prompt engineering we are doing now will also be automated away. Within 5 years the best practices for the most popular use cases will have been found, automated and fully baked in.
Bing Bing Bing...<p>How often do engineers get a say in product direction?<p>Every one keeps saying that AI isnt moving the needle on the bottom line.<p>Well duh, code doesn't move the bottom line, features do, products do.<p>If you're building all the wrong things faster, all your doing is performing a speed run to a legacy code base.
All modern engineering is about managing complexity
It is revisionist to say that software engineering was never about writing code. It was, in fact, a huge component, and it also wasn't easy. Sure most code is glue but even the glue was tedious and the actual hard and novel parts still aren't really done that well by AI (yet).<p>It's less about writing code now but we're lying if we try to pretend it was a distraction and not a big part of the real work.<p>And every claim about what the job actually is or was all along has an implied (for now) at the end of it.
I have no idea why people believe AI will not be good at all the other things. It's a general reasoning machine, it surely can reason on many things beside the actual code.<p>I've been hearing this "writing code is not what being an enginner is" mantra for years like some sort of gotcha. (It was prevalent even before AI, and I think people underestimated a lot how many people were simply incapable of writing code even given all the specs and design choices.)