"The weekly two-hour alignment meeting becomes a five-minute async review. My main concern is that as soon as people are out of the trenches of their work, that their motivation for the quality of said work deteriorates. This means we will have to invent better motivations for people to work at all. I can't see this kind of work-people as operators-excites anyone. Why would they work at all, then?"
"AI creates a similar catch 22 situation with programming and junior talent by creating exceptionally potent people in terms of their agency, but at the same time creates big gaping holes in their knowledge of their craft that they are completely useless without AI. To me this is a clear message to everyone entering the workforce: AI is your multiplier, not a replacement for actually knowing how to do the work."
Human supervisors should oversee AI-driven workflows from a leveraged vantage rather than perform operational tasks within those loops. Routine alignment meetings can shrink from hours to brief asynchronous reviews as AI handles execution. Removing workers from hands-on tasks risks degrading their motivation and pride in quality, requiring new incentives and roles that sustain engagement. AI amplifies individual agency but can create gaps in craft knowledge, especially for junior programmers who become dependent on tools. AI should be treated as a multiplier, not a substitute for foundational technical understanding. Technology practitioners must learn how systems work before delegating to AI to avoid becoming ineffective without it.
Read at Dragan Babic
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]