3 ms·

If what you're saying is true we are moving into an era where rockstar product managers are going to be more in demand than programmers since they can do all of

If what you're saying is true we are moving into an era where rockstar product managers are going to be more in demand than programmers since they can do all of what you mentioned above. And typically (though not always) product managers have better people skills than programmers and consequently they might be more effective at the "gathering requirements" and "working together" bits you mentioned above. Even much of the "validating releases" and "testing" parts should also be things that a decent PM should be able to wrangle now by themselves with some LLM agents to assist them. Afterall, why bother about code quality of a testing harness. So long as the PM can keep a coherent test case list and have end to end tests that cover them, programmers can leave that to them as well.

satvikpendem 2mo ago
Well, it's true. In a world where code is commoditized, a PM who knows exactly what the customers' needs are will be much more successful than an engineer who does not. Not sure what is controversial about that.
- pnt12 2mo ago
  Why not have the customer talk to an llm and iterate on the plan? Many customers will appreciate the 30m back and forth replacing the multiple hour meetings. People are subtracting a lot of hard parts from their thinking, and think it's simpler than it is. What happens when the test suite isn't testing the real thing? The ci/cd doesn't even start? There is a bug requiring a hot fix ASAP? The code is growing into a nasty meatball and spaghetti dish, and the llms just turn shift it around. What about when the agent starts thinking in circles and neefs guidance to start working? I'm not a ludite: I use llms every day, but I try not to be a meat proxy. Some one off scripts are vibe coded, but applications need real maintainable code. My prediction for winners and losers: some companies will lay off a ton of programmers and replace with AI, with short term success but long term big problems. Other companies will use llms to boost productivity, but keep their engineers responsible for the health of the products. Short term gains won't be as impressive, but productivity will be higher and the company will be competitive in the long term.
  - satvikpendem 2mo ago
    > Why not have the customer talk to an llm and iterate on the plan? They already do that, hence the SaaSpocalypse. The hope for these AI companies is that the models get better than engineers such that the answer to all your questions is that the AI will handle it.
    - twister2920 2mo ago
      > They already do that, hence the SaaSpocalypse The market believes they will do that, hence the SaaSpocalypse. very important difference
      - satvikpendem 2mo ago
        No they already do do that. I know many companies building internal tools with LLMs.
        twister2920 2mo ago
        sure, does your dad also work at Nintendo?
        satvikpendem 2mo ago
        One is verifiable, if you don't believe maybe you should ask others in the field too. Or maybe you're just wrong and won't admit it, clutching to your preconceived notions.
        twister2920 2mo ago
        if it's verifiable, I'd love for you to verify it. I don't consider hearsay a strong form of verification > maybe you're just wrong and won't admit it, clutching to your preconceived notions. I assume in your world this is only something other people do, but your judgement is perfect right?
- agentultra 2mo ago
  I think the controversial part is that an engineer cannot talk to or understand customers.
agentultra 2mo ago
A test doesn’t prove much. Highly experienced programmers seem to have a hard time understanding this. Why do we have tens of thousands of test cases and we still find new errors constantly? Why is our software so bloated and slow? We do we still have security breaches? LLMs can be useful tools when guided by experts. I don’t think a PM with a dream is going to cut it in the long run.
- sumedh 2mo ago
  > Why do we have tens of thousands of test cases and we still find new errors constantly? Why is our software so bloated and slow? We do we still have security breaches? Do those tests test the right thing? Adding more features is given higher priority vs optimizing current features. Arent humans the weakest link in security, click on some random link and enter your credentials because the fake site looks legit.

satvikpendem 2mo ago

Well, it's true. In a world where code is commoditized, a PM who knows exactly what the customers' needs are will be much more successful than an engineer who does not. Not sure what is controversial about that.

pnt12 2mo ago
Why not have the customer talk to an llm and iterate on the plan? Many customers will appreciate the 30m back and forth replacing the multiple hour meetings. People are subtracting a lot of hard parts from their thinking, and think it's simpler than it is. What happens when the test suite isn't testing the real thing? The ci/cd doesn't even start? There is a bug requiring a hot fix ASAP? The code is growing into a nasty meatball and spaghetti dish, and the llms just turn shift it around. What about when the agent starts thinking in circles and neefs guidance to start working? I'm not a ludite: I use llms every day, but I try not to be a meat proxy. Some one off scripts are vibe coded, but applications need real maintainable code. My prediction for winners and losers: some companies will lay off a ton of programmers and replace with AI, with short term success but long term big problems. Other companies will use llms to boost productivity, but keep their engineers responsible for the health of the products. Short term gains won't be as impressive, but productivity will be higher and the company will be competitive in the long term.
- satvikpendem 2mo ago
  > Why not have the customer talk to an llm and iterate on the plan? They already do that, hence the SaaSpocalypse. The hope for these AI companies is that the models get better than engineers such that the answer to all your questions is that the AI will handle it.
  - twister2920 2mo ago
    > They already do that, hence the SaaSpocalypse The market believes they will do that, hence the SaaSpocalypse. very important difference
    - satvikpendem 2mo ago
      No they already do do that. I know many companies building internal tools with LLMs.
      - twister2920 2mo ago
        sure, does your dad also work at Nintendo?
        satvikpendem 2mo ago
        One is verifiable, if you don't believe maybe you should ask others in the field too. Or maybe you're just wrong and won't admit it, clutching to your preconceived notions.
        twister2920 2mo ago
        if it's verifiable, I'd love for you to verify it. I don't consider hearsay a strong form of verification > maybe you're just wrong and won't admit it, clutching to your preconceived notions. I assume in your world this is only something other people do, but your judgement is perfect right?
agentultra 2mo ago
I think the controversial part is that an engineer cannot talk to or understand customers.

agentultra 2mo ago

A test doesn’t prove much. Highly experienced programmers seem to have a hard time understanding this. Why do we have tens of thousands of test cases and we still find new errors constantly? Why is our software so bloated and slow? We do we still have security breaches? LLMs can be useful tools when guided by experts. I don’t think a PM with a dream is going to cut it in the long run.

sumedh 2mo ago
> Why do we have tens of thousands of test cases and we still find new errors constantly? Why is our software so bloated and slow? We do we still have security breaches? Do those tests test the right thing? Adding more features is given higher priority vs optimizing current features. Arent humans the weakest link in security, click on some random link and enter your credentials because the fake site looks legit.