I read Anthropic's engineering post on a Wednesday night, half-distracted, expecting the usual AI demo write-up. Bigger model, bigger benchmark, move on. But by the third paragraph I'd put my phone down. By the end I was sitting in silence, genuinely unsettled.
The post is called Building a C Compiler with a Team of Parallel Claudes. A small group of researchers let multiple Claude instances run autonomously for weeks. The result: a working, 100,000-line C compiler capable of building the Linux kernel.
What unsettled me wasn't the compiler. It was recognizing, in sharp detail, how much of what I do every day just got automated. And simultaneously, how much of what I do every day just became more valuable.
The compiler is the least interesting part
Sixteen Claude agents ran in parallel. They took locks via git. They merged each other's work. They debugged regressions. They specialized without being told to.
No orchestrator. Almost no human supervision.
I've managed teams where we couldn't coordinate that cleanly. I'm not joking.
The humans didn't write the compiler. They designed the environment in which a compiler could be written. The test suites. The feedback loops. The guardrails.
That distinction is everything.
The real job was writing the rules of the game
If you strip the article down to its core, the humans did four things:
- Wrote tests precise enough to guide agents who couldn't ask clarifying questions
- Built feedback loops the models could interpret without spiraling
- Set constraints that kept sixteen parallel agents from destroying each other's progress
- Decided what counted as success versus what merely looked like it
That last one sticks with me. I've worked on projects where the test suite was green and the product was broken. We all have. The tests measured the wrong thing. Nobody noticed because green felt like done.
These researchers had to anticipate that problem before handing the reins to agents who would never feel uneasy about a passing test. They had to encode their own judgment into harnesses and metrics because there would be no one around to squint at the output and say, "Wait, that doesn't feel right."
Whoever controls the tests controls the system. That's always been true. It just didn't used to matter this much.
Taste is the thing that didn't automate
This is the section I keep coming back to.
The compiler works. But the Anthropic team is honest about what it produced: the generated code is inefficient. The architecture is serviceable, not elegant. Fixing one thing often breaks another. The agents would sometimes refactor code into patterns that technically passed but made the codebase worse. They'd optimize a function's performance while quietly making it unreadable.
I've seen this exact failure mode in my own work with AI-assisted coding. Last year I was building a Blazor component and let Copilot generate a chunk of the state management logic. It worked. Tests passed. But when I came back two weeks later to add a feature, I couldn't follow what it had done. The code was correct and completely unmaintainable.
That's what taste is. Not a vague preference for "clean code." Taste is the instinct that says, "Yes, this passes, but we're going to regret it in three months." It's knowing when something is technically correct but structurally wrong. It's recognizing future pain before it shows up in any benchmark.
The agents didn't have that instinct. They optimized for what was measurable. Everything unmeasurable got worse.
I think about how the compiler handled the C preprocessor, #define and #include and all the macro expansion that makes C both powerful and miserable to parse. The agents could handle the specification. What they couldn't do was make good architectural choices about how to handle it. Where to draw module boundaries. When to accept a little duplication instead of a clever abstraction that would bite them later.
That kind of judgment is still ours. For now.
Not everything wants to be parallelized
When the problem could be split into independent pieces, the agent teams flew. When everything collapsed into one giant task (building the Linux kernel), parallelism became counterproductive. Every agent hit the same bug. Every agent overwrote the same fix.
Anyone who's managed a team through a production outage knows this feeling. Sometimes you need fewer people, not more.
The uncomfortable part
Toward the end of the post, the tone changes. The author admits unease. That honesty is rare.
When you pair-program with AI, you're present. You notice weirdness. You feel discomfort. You slow things down. Autonomous systems don't do that. Tests pass. The system moves on.
I felt that shift in my own workflow months ago. I started trusting AI suggestions faster. Reviewing less carefully. It's subtle. You don't notice it happening until you ship something and realize you can't explain why it works.
Someone still has to decide when to trust the output. Someone still has to own the risk. Someone still has to say, "We ship this," or "We don't."
That responsibility doesn't belong to the agents. It belongs to us.
What I'm actually changing
Reading this post, I made a short list. Not a theoretical framework. Just things I'm doing differently now.
- Writing better tests before handing work to AI agents
- Spending more time on problem decomposition, less on implementation
- Reviewing AI output like I'd review a junior dev's PR (not skimming)
- Getting comfortable saying "I don't know if this is right" out loud
The skills that matter aren't the ones I expected five years ago. They're not about typing faster or memorizing APIs. They look more like: framing problems so success can be measured precisely. Designing tests that fail for the right reasons. Knowing when autonomy should stop.
This is engineering one level up. You're not competing with the machine at execution. You're defining the terrain on which execution happens.
Final Thoughts
I keep thinking about a line from the post where they describe watching the agents work overnight. The researchers would come back in the morning to find thousands of new lines of code, dozens of merged branches, and a compiler that was measurably better than when they left.
And they'd also find choices they wouldn't have made. Patterns they'd have to live with. Technical debt nobody decided to take on.
That's the part I'm still sitting with. The compiler writing itself is impressive. What I'm less sure about is whether we'll be good at this new job. The job of letting go without losing control. Of designing constraints instead of writing code. Of trusting systems that move faster than our ability to understand them.
I don't have a clean answer. I'm not sure anyone does yet.
But I know the answer isn't to pretend it's not happening. And it's not to panic. It's probably something quieter. Learning to hold the tension between "this is incredible" and "this makes me uneasy," and working from both of those feelings at once.
About the Author: I'm Mashrul, a .NET developer writing about software engineering, AI, and the messy human side of building things. Find me on LinkedIn, GitHub, or X.
Top comments (0)