Why would it go to better architecture decisions when you can just ask the AI to make those too?

The Human problem with "the everything machine" is that it does "everything" and by and large Humans really do need to do something while we're alive

> Why would it go to better architecture decisions when you can just ask the AI to make those too?

Because anyone could do that.

To remain competitive, humans will have to keep using their cognitive functions.

Remaining competitive is already such an exhausting, burnout fueled treadmill

I cannot imagine how miserable it will be trying to keep up with the AI slop firehose

Remain competitive by not producing a firehose of slop. Remain competitive by producing "non slop", even if it's not a firehose.

Because the AI is not good for the big picture or really understanding anything at all.

If the human doesn't do it, no one does.

So great if the AI can help with the subtasks, bad if people assume the big problems will solve itself.

> Why would it go to better architecture decisions when you can just ask the AI to make those too?

Because AI can’t do it. It does not understand anything and probably won’t before a very long time.

> Cognitive load could go elsewhere.

EVE ponytail length

Because people are lazy.

Where it will go is discovering more ways to eat sugar.