This is a good analogy, and not just because of skills atrophy. Managers grow the skills needed for their organization. Their team affects them. A process-or

This is a good analogy, and not just because of skills atrophy. Managers grow the skills needed for their organization. Their team affects them. A process-oriented team with quality/validation mindset has replaceable roles; the action is in the process. An expert team has people with tremendous skills and discretion doing what needs doing; the action is in selection and incentives. Managers adapt to their team requirements, in ways positive and negative: becoming rule-bound, privileging favorites, etc. With AI this might be a positive insofar as it forces people to state the issues clearly, identifying relevant context, constraints, objectives, etc. Agile benefitted software development by changing the granularity of delivery and planning -- essentially, helping people avoid getting lost in planning fantasies. Similarly, I believe that the winner of the AI-for-development race (copilot et al) will not just produce good code, but build good developers by driving them to state requirements clearly and simply. A good measure here is the number of iterations to complete code. An anti-pattern here, as with agile, is where planning devolves into exploring and exploring into incremental changes for no real benefit - polishing turds. Again, a good measure is the number of sessions to completion; too many and you know you don't know what you're doing, or the AI cannot grasp the trees for the forest.