You can tax reach though.

The "overwhelming majority" standard for harm seems odd when you use 15% of smokers getting harmed as an example. 15% is not an overwhelming majority.

Is there a widely used phrase which represents the 95-97% range? One did not come to my head.

If there isn't a phrase then just say the numbers...

We are way past this question now.

I kept a personal license for while because I thought Windsurf kept memories a little better than Claude.

But now since I use Claude at work I switched to keep my home and work stacks similar.

All that cleanup can be done with AI and then you can add guidance to the codebase so that the next LLM will do a better job at conforming.

We are not.

I feel like I'm a stone skipping across the water instead of being submerged deep in coding context.

I'm getting used to it but I don't like it.

I'm also much more tired at the end of the day. My mind feels broken. I don't know if our brains were designed for this.

How are the architecture changes you are proposing improving the end result?

>but not being able to control the exact output worries me

Why?

I'm an 99% organic person (I suppose I have tooth fillings) and the new models write code better than I do.

I've been using LLMS for 14+ months now and they've exceeded my expectations.

So are you learning a trade? Or do you somehow think you’ll be one of the developers “good enough” to remain employed?

I have a physical goods side hustle already and I'm brainstorming ideas about a trade I can do that will benefit from my programming experience.

I'm thinking HVAC or painting lines in parking lots. HVAC because I can program smart systems and parking lot lines because I can use google maps and algos to propose more efficient parking lot designs to existing business owners.

There is that paradox when if something becomes cheaper there is more demand so we'll see what happens.

Finally, I'm a mediocre dev that can only handle 2-3 agents at a time so I probably won't be good enough.

Not only do they exceed expectations, but any time they fall down, you can improve your instructions to them. It's easy to get into a virtuous cycle.

I'm a former EM who would never go back in an AI age.

EMs deal with friction and from my experience more output is more friction.

You have org leaders and businessy people putting their foot on the gas because AI is so productive and then programmers shipping 2-3x more code.

These two forces collide and you're stuck dealing with the friction so 10x the amount of initiatives you did before.

The friction is like sandpaper on sandpaper.

As an EM I don't get this. You are the sole responsible for quality. You are the sole responsible for what tools use. AI is voluntary to use. If AI produces code that no one knows and is hard to maintain, don't use AI in that way. If you can't make that decision, are you really the EM?

> AI is voluntary to use.

> If you can't make that decision, are you really the EM?

You'd be served well as an EM by this part of the Serenity Prayer:

"God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference."

Depending on your organization, odds are high that AI use is one of the things you cannot change. Perhaps not even something you're ought to change. If your team is delivering x% more, "it makes my job x% more difficult so don't do that" won't fly neither upwards nor downwards.

> If AI produces code that no one knows and is hard to maintain

I think you're making an assumption here that the main problem with AI use is necessarily quality.

OP wasn't even talking about AI producing bad code, just that it creating more code, and enabling more things to happen. More things going on at the same time, means you'd have more friction points and more things that can go wrong. Whenever those happen, the EM is pulled in.

> You are the sole responsible for what tools use.

Sure, but now competitors are shipping like crazy (at their EM's sanity expense?). What to do?

> AI is voluntary

Until the company mandate. And also there 10 other EMs that I am competing with on my org tree alone, and their teams are all AI-heavy. Is that really a matter of choice?

I don't understand he comment.

AI produces code that people can understand and is easy to maintain if you ask it for that.

Maybe I misunderstood your initial comment