It's like involving the product owner in deciding whether to use a linked-list or a bucket or a hashmap for object/DS traversal (say, a list of triangles in a 3

It's like involving the product owner in deciding whether to use a linked-list or a bucket or a hashmap for object/DS traversal (say, a list of triangles in a 3D scene). Most of the time - you just wouldn't involve them. The coder decides and implements and may or may not even report off what was decided and why. That's the gap-filling that I think it would be hard for an AI to make (of course there are a lot of space-time-memory tradeoff costing matrices that could support an AI decision process). What I find fascinating about humans is how idealistic we are (as a species). "Wouldn't it be nice if a business domain expert could just "specify" applications without the need for technical specs or coders?" (It's just like a compiler, but smarter, right?) Or (not to get too political), "Wouldn't it be nice if we could all share economic outcomes more equally without specific consideration as to contribution?" Well, yes, it would! But, as the old trope goes: Capitalism is for sinners, and socialism is for saints - and we ain't no saints. So, I believe that most humans do their best every day to do the best, in their situation, with what they know. But individually, we can't know everything. So, heirarchal management structures are a hack to sorta/kinda solve a problem with a constraint. 1) No individual is a panopticon or even if a polymath, capable of industrial-scale output, and 2) We are apparently tribal hierarchal monkeys, and we operate better (as individuals of the human species) when there is a chain of command - where no individual can effectively directly manage more than 8~15 reports. Thanks for your comment. Hopefully, I didn't drive too far off into the ditch in my response.