Some good points, but I feel that by the end, the article lost track of an important angle. Quoting from the ending: > And now we come full circle: AI isn’t ta

Some good points, but I feel that by the end, the article lost track of an important angle. Quoting from the ending: > And now we come full circle: AI isn’t taking our jobs; it’s giving us a chance to reclaim those broader aspects of our role that we gave away to specialists. To return to a time when software engineering meant more than just writing code. When it meant understanding the whole problem space, from user needs to business impact, from system design to operational excellence. Well, I for one never cared about business impact in general sense, nor did I consider it part of the problem space. Obviously, minding the business impact is critical at work. But if we're talking about identity, then it never was a part of mine - and I believe the same is true about many software engineers in my cohort. I picked up coding because I wanted to build things (games, at first). Build things, not sell things. This mirrors a common blind spot I regularly see in some articles and comments on HN (which perhaps is just because of its adjacency to startup culture) - doing stuff and running a company that does stuff are entirely different things. I want to be a builder - I don't want to be a founder. Nor I want to be a manager of builders. So, for those of us with slightly narrower sense of identity as software engineers, the AI thing is both fascinating and disconcerting.