Here's a take that might be uncomfortable for developers to hear.
We assumed that when AI arrived, it would be us the technical people who would benefit the most. We already understood the tools. We could integrate them, extend them, build on top of them.
But looking at who's actually winning with AI right now, I'm not so sure that assumption holds.
What I've been noticing
The people I see getting the most leverage from AI aren't always developers.
They're marketers who now produce content at scale without a writing team. They're entrepreneurs who ship MVPs without hiring a dev. They're consultants who automate their entire workflow without writing a single line of code. They're salespeople who personalize outreach at a volume that used to require a full team.
These are people who, a few years ago, were blocked by the technical barrier. They had ideas, they understood their market, they knew how to sell but they couldn't build. AI didn't just help them. It removed the main obstacle that was holding them back.
The obstacle that disappeared
For a long time, technical skill was the bottleneck.
You had a business idea? You needed a developer. You wanted to automate something? You needed to code, or hire someone who could. You wanted to build a product? Months of learning, or a significant budget.
That bottleneck is collapsing.
Now, someone with zero technical background can prompt their way to a working prototype, a functional script, an automated workflow. Not perfectly but good enough to validate an idea, get a first client, or launch a product.
For technical people, AI is an accelerator. For non-technical people with business skills, AI is a key that just unlocked a door they've been standing in front of for years.
That's not the same thing.
Why business skills compound with AI better than technical skills alone
Here's what I think is happening underneath.
When a developer uses AI, we get faster at things we were already doing. We write code more quickly, debug more efficiently, explore new technologies with less friction. The ceiling goes up.
But when someone with strong business instincts uses AI, something different happens. They can now execute on ideas they already knew were good. They understand the market, they know the customer, they know how to position and sell and now they can build too.
They had the strategy. AI gave them the execution.
A developer with no business sense can now build twice as fast. But they're still building the wrong things twice as fast.
A non-technical person with sharp business instincts can now build and sell. That combination is incredibly powerful.
Does that mean developers are losing?
Not exactly and this is where it gets nuanced.
Developers who only have technical skills are in a more vulnerable position than they think. The value of "I can build this" is shrinking as AI makes building more accessible to everyone.
But developers who combine technical depth with business awareness who understand not just how to build but what to build and for whom those people have an extraordinary advantage right now.
They can move faster than a pure business person (who still needs AI to do the technical parts), and they understand the product at a deeper level than someone who's just prompting their way through it.
The winning profile isn't the best developer. It's the developer who learned to think like a business person.
What this means for me
As a developer, this observation changed something in how I think about my own growth.
Getting better at Vue or TypeScript or Python is still valuable. But it's no longer sufficient on its own.
Understanding how to position a product. Knowing how to reach an audience. Building in public. Writing about what I build. Understanding what problems are worth solving before writing a single line of code.
These are the skills I'm investing in now not instead of the technical ones, but alongside them.
Because in an era where AI can build, the people who win will be the ones who know what to build and how to make people care about it.
What do you think are you seeing this pattern too? Do you think developers need to develop business skills to stay relevant, or is technical depth still the main differentiator?
writing honestly about AI, learning, and building.*
Follow along on LinkedIn
Top comments (2)
The strongest point here is that AI lowers the cost of building, which shifts the scarce skill from “can you build it” to “do you know what’s worth building.” That’s a real change, but I’d add a caveat: removing the barrier to a prototype isn’t the same as removing the barrier to a product that survives contact with reality. A non-technical founder can now reach a working demo quickly, yet the hard parts tend to show up later: security, data handling, debugging something they didn’t write, and maintaining it as requirements change. Those are exactly the places where technical depth still matters, and where AI-generated code can fail quietly.
There’s also a survivorship effect in who we notice. The marketer who shipped an MVP is visible, while the many who stalled at the first unexplained bug are not. So the winning profile may be less “business person who can now build” and more “someone who can judge AI output well enough to know when it’s wrong,” which is a skill developers already have a head start on.
That supports your conclusion about combining both sides. Business sense decides what to build, and technical judgment decides whether what got built is sound.
To answer your question: I think business awareness is becoming a differentiator, but technical depth is turning into the thing that lets you trust what the AI produced rather than simply generate more of it.
The mechanism you are describing is the standard commoditization of a complementary input. When the cost of synthesizing routine code drops toward zero, economic surplus shifts to whatever input remains scarce. For the last twenty years, writing the software was the scarce complement, so developers captured the rent.
Assuming business operators capture that surplus permanently misses the next pricing equilibrium. When anyone can prompt an MVP or automate an outbound campaign in an afternoon, the barrier to entry collapses on both sides. A marketer who can spin up five niche SaaS tools without engineers is competing against ten thousand other marketers doing the exact same thing.
When software stops being a moat, the surplus flows straight to distribution channels, balance sheets capable of underwriting liability, and proprietary data pipelines. Business people who only bring generic strategy find their margins compressed just as quickly as junior syntax writers.