<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
  <channel>
    <title>DEV Community: Lingchong Hu</title>
    <description>The latest articles on DEV Community by Lingchong Hu (@lingchongeng).</description>
    <link>https://dev.to/lingchongeng</link>
    
    <atom:link rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="https://dev.to/feed/lingchongeng"/>
    <language>en</language>
    <item>
      <title>In the AI era, your company will look like a law firm</title>
      <dc:creator>Lingchong Hu</dc:creator>
      <pubDate>Fri, 03 Jul 2026 19:49:59 +0000</pubDate>
      <link>https://dev.to/lingchongeng/in-the-ai-era-your-company-will-look-like-a-law-firm-39e1</link>
      <guid>https://dev.to/lingchongeng/in-the-ai-era-your-company-will-look-like-a-law-firm-39e1</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Everyone says AI lets one person do a team's work. True — but I think most people draw the wrong conclusion from it.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Ten years ago, "being able to build the thing" was itself a moat. People who could write software — and actually finish it — were scarce. Shipping alone made you win.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;AI has pushed the cost of building to the floor. Being able to build is no longer the moat. It's the entry ticket.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;So where did the game move? To two things: whether you can spot a demand that actually exists, and whether you can stand behind the outcome — all the way to the end.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Here's the trouble: these two almost never live in the same person. People who understand demand usually aren't the ones who can do top-tier work. People who do top-tier work are usually far from the client and the market.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;There's a hundred-year-old structure that solved exactly this: the law firm. On one side, partners — they hold the client, understand what the client actually needs, and answer for the outcome of the case. On the other side, associates — they do the casework. Demand and execution get split in two, each pushed to its best, then welded back together by one thing: accountability.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The more I think about it, the more I believe this is the right shape for an AI-era company. It's how we actually run today: I'm up front catching demand, talking to clients, owning outcomes; three architects behind me land the projects one by one and make them solid.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;And one thing I'm increasingly sure of: technical service will standardize, the way legal service did. As coding agents get stronger, the "build it" end looks more and more like a repeatable assembly line. Who does the building matters less and less.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Which is exactly why the game moves upstream. The hard, valuable thing now is running the whole chain: from catching a real demand, to delivering it in an increasingly standard way, to answering for the result at the end. Getting that chain to run smoothly — that's the real fight ahead.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Curious how this plays out where you work — who catches the demand, who builds, and who answers for the outcome when it ships? If those are different people, what welds them together?&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;If you're thinking seriously about how a company or a team should be built in the AI era — I've been chewing on this for a while, and I'd genuinely like to compare notes. Write me: &lt;a href="mailto:lingchon@seas.upenn.edu"&gt;lingchon@seas.upenn.edu&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

</description>
      <category>ai</category>
      <category>startup</category>
      <category>career</category>
      <category>discuss</category>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
