Well, the discussion isn't really about titles, as it is, about job descriptions. Titles are important to HR departments, because they determine salary ranges

Well, the discussion isn't really about titles, as it is, about job descriptions. Titles are important to HR departments, because they determine salary ranges from them (and sometimes, other perks). Apple used to let their staff pick whatever title they wanted –Within limits, I'm sure (I saw some rather amusing business cards, in my time). I think they used a similar system to the government, internally (A numeric level system), to calculate salaries. Don't know if they still allow custom job titles (my money is on "no"). This is not a new type of argument. Whenever some force multiplier tech has arrived, there has been a struggle between the folks that are good at the new "multiplied" tech, and the ones that are really good at the older tech. Sort of a "John Henry" thing. Companies usually pick the former. They get the same results, but faster/cheaper, and, when you are shipping, final results matter, and there are many factors in the "what matters" calculation. So, if you can get a young PromptNinja, for a certain price, or a team of older CodeNinjas, how do you think the beancounters will go? Remember that buzzwords count, when you're shopping for funding and generating hype. As an "older CodeNinja," I think it kinda sucks, but it's the reality of today's world. I have a lot of company, and our pool is getting bigger -fast. I've been on the other side, as well. These days, I prefer hand-crafting my software, but I am quite aware that it isn't really valued, and that it would not be considered good ROI.