More and more of the work will be produced by something that cannot be held responsible.
The code, the draft, the migration plan, the summary of the incident. Generated in seconds, plausible on the surface, and entirely unaccountable. A tool cannot be asked why it did that. It cannot be trusted, in the sense that trust means someone will carry the consequences if they were wrong.
So the job quietly shifts. Less of your day is making the thing. More of it is being the person who says, I have looked at this, I understand it, and I am putting my name on it.
That is not a small role. It is most of what senior actually means, and it was true before any of this arrived. The difference is that it used to be bundled with the making, and now it is being separated out and left standing on its own.
Which means the skill to build is judgment you can defend.
Being able to read something you did not write and tell whether it is right. Knowing which parts of a system will punish you for being casual and which will forgive you. Recognising the confident answer that is subtly wrong, which is the failure mode that will cost your industry the most over the next decade.
And knowing what you do not know well enough to sign off, which is the honest version of the same skill.
There is a practical habit in here for you. When you use these tools, do not just check whether the output works. Check whether you could explain every decision in it to a colleague who disagreed with you. If you cannot, you have not reviewed it. You have accepted it, and you have taken on responsibility for something you do not actually understand.
That gap is where the next generation of very expensive incidents will come from.
The people who do well will not be the ones who generate the most. They will be the ones whose sign off means something, because they have been careful about what they attach it to.
Be someone whose name on a thing is worth something.
– Asael Shinder
Top comments (0)