Not OP but I’ll bite: > I also would never call any of this work a 'labour of love' either. That’s a you problem. This could very well be a labour of love and

Not OP but I’ll bite: > I also would never call any of this work a 'labour of love' either. That’s a you problem. This could very well be a labour of love and nothing about any of this precludes it from being a labour of love. > E.g. you have about the same distance to the actual implementation as a manager of a traditional programming team who from time to time skims over the source code to check for signals that things start to go sideways, and otherwise mainly feeds feature specification tickets into the team which are coming from a separate 'design department' I guess you’re rather young or not really acquainted with the history of computer science, because that’s the exact same argument people used to make about compilers… and then GUIs…and then high-level programming languages… and then OOP… the list goes on and on and on. Every time a new tool arrives that disrupts the way something is traditionally done, those that feel insecure about their work tend to lash out with the same “no true Scotsman” arguments. I’m not saying AI is perfect or that it replaces programmers in any way. What I’m saying is that it’s just a different way of going about the business of programming. It’s just yet another level of abstraction.