Software projects rarely fail because someone can’t write code.
They fail because people quietly disagree, assumptions go unchallenged, and everyon...
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
Interesting perspective. I've been experiencing this from a different angle - as a solo founder using AI as my primary collaborator, I've been able to sidestep a lot of these alignment battles entirely.
The trade-off you describe (less flexibility for backend engineers, discipline around spec maintenance) assumes humans on both sides who have opinions and preferences. When it's me + Claude, I don't have to negotiate syntax choices or convince anyone that a breaking change is worth it. I just make the call and move on.
But here's the thing - that only works because I invested heavily in the architecture first. Consistent patterns, clear service boundaries, good test coverage. The AI doesn't push back on conventions, it follows them. Which means the "arguing" phase you describe gets replaced by "did I set up the system so the AI can do this without hand-holding?"
Different problem, same underlying truth: the system design matters more than the individual interactions
Really thoughtful take — I like how you frame AI as a collaborator rather than a shortcut. Your point about architecture doing the “arguing” up front really resonates, especially the idea that good system design replaces ongoing negotiation. It makes me think the real leverage isn’t just using AI, but setting things up so it can work independently and consistently. I’m very interested in seeing how this approach evolves as solo founders push it further.
I really enjoyed this - especially the way you framed disagreement as something productive instead of something to smooth over. On the best team I ever worked with, we constantly bickered (but made, arguably, some of the best products of my life).
The part about specs forcing real conversations, instead of polite assumptions, really resonated. I’ve seen the same thing happen when decisions are made visible early: it’s uncomfortable in the moment, but it saves so much pain later.
Thanks for sharing a version of collaboration that feels real and not LinkedIn-glossy.
Thank you — I agree that healthy disagreement is often a sign of trust, not dysfunction, and the best teams use it to surface better decisions earlier. Making assumptions visible through specs or early decisions creates short-term friction but dramatically improves long-term outcomes.
?
😎
Absolutely love this! It's not about avoiding conflict, it’s about being real and honest. Arguing early on leads to better decisions and a stronger, more trustworthy team. This really hits home!
Thank you so much—your insight really resonates.