Lately, I've been doing some deep personal reflection. I'm talking about myself, I hope no one misunderstands, on how pervasive the use of AI has become in my daily development workflow.
Through a bit of self-analysis, I've discovered some interesting dynamics. Dependencies often arise from the desire to fill a void. But what kind of void does an experienced developer like me face?
As a professional, I have the skills. Sure, AI helps me get things done faster, but the final product is always the translation of my vision; if I don't fully understand the solution, I discard it. I'm not looking for "magic," I'm looking for efficiency. Yet, I realize I've used AI to fill a specific void: the need for discussion.
Software development is inherently solitary. The satisfaction of a successful "execution" after hours of discussions, refinements, and clashes over an architecture is an experience I miss today. The chat interface is always there, ready to respond. But there's a problem: it's a "yes-man." Even when I force it to be critical or provocative via the system's prompts, I know it's just reciting a script to please me. There's no conviction, no risk of error, none of the friction that arises when a colleague courageously defends their vision, perhaps one that conflicts with mine.
We are part of a huge community, but debate often remains superficial. One might argue that posts and comments are enough, but anyone who has tried knows it doesn't work very well: a debate is truly alive only when there is no latency. In comments, the time between thinking, writing, and waiting for a response diminishes the energy of the exchange, turning it into a series of monologues rather than a dialogue.
Why don't we try creating "virtual tables" where we can discuss projects, architectures, and technical choices with the natural rhythm of a conversation? Direct, real-time discussions, in person or remotely, where the exchange of ideas can spark sparks, without the filter (and delay) of a keyboard used in deferred mode.
But if the benefits are so clear, why aren't we doing this already? The main obstacle is trust. We are still so reluctant to create open spaces for discussion because the fear that our ideas might be "stolen" is still strong—perhaps a relic of an era when value resided in secrecy. Today, however, value no longer lies in how we implement, but in the depth of why we make certain choices.
Overcoming this barrier means more than simply opening up to debate; it means rediscovering the potential of true collaboration. How many times have we abandoned an ambitious project because, alone, we lacked the time, the complementary vision, or the drive needed to take it beyond the prototype stage? Together, we could not only solve complex bugs or validate architectures, but also generate synergies that currently remain trapped in our own minds. Collaboration means multiplying perspectives, not sharing credit.
I know it's difficult. We must break down established barriers, but the opportunities for professional and personal growth, in an industry increasingly dominated by depersonalization, are enormous.
I'm not looking for someone who agrees with me. I'm looking for someone with the courage of their convictions to challenge my ideas. Who else is tired of the "convenience" of AI and wants to return to peer-to-peer debate?
I'm very curious to hear your thoughts. Have you ever experienced this form of "technological isolation"? Do you ever seek interaction in AI that isn't purely technical? I look forward to your thoughts and reactions.
🇮🇹 Nota di Trasparenza dell'Autore
Ho pensato e scritto il post in italiano ed ho ho utilizzato un LLM esclusivamente per la traduzione in inglese, per rendere il contenuto accessibile alla community internazionale.
🇬🇧 Author's Transparency Note
I conceptualized and wrote the entire piece in my native language, Italian. I used an LLM strictly as a translation tool to adapt the content into English, to make it accessible to the global community.
Top comments (0)