Except usage of AI is not only about writing code, it produces software very often from very small intent, shallow context and few bread crumbs. And you don't need to play Planning Poker with it

Yes, people care. Part of the job of management is not just to define what is to be done, but how it is to be done. Let's put to bed this notion of "nobody cares how you do the job as long as it gets done" because it's hogwash.

In the early 20th century, Frederick Winslow Taylor came up with scientific management, a set of principles for determining the most efficient way to perform work tasks using systematic observation and measurement rather than tradition and "rule of thumb". The problem Taylor was trying to solve was that of soldiering, or as we call it more euphemistically today, "quiet quitting"—doing the bare minimum of work necessary to keep your job. If the best way of performing a particular task were known to management, soldiering workers could be held to account for not performing as much work as they could, effectively stealing from their employers. So since that time, business has had a vested interest in understanding the best way to perform all business tasks and making that the institutional standard.

You might think "But that doesn't apply to us in software engineering/IT. We use our smarts to solve problems." You couldn't be more wrong. Milt Bryce's insight was that the exact same management principles that applied to the manufacturing and construction industries applied to information systems as well, and treating a software shop like an industrial factory would save the company time, money, and effort.

Today, it is known that, when properly prompted, LLMs write better code than humans, much faster than humans can, and test it much more thoroughly as well. So yes, your employer absolutely cares whether you use an LLM or not. What rational person wouldn't, especially if they don't want to waste time or money? Furthermore, now that LLM use has been standardized as best practice because they are vastly more efficient, if you refuse to use LLMs on the job, you are stealing from your employer. Your boss has every right to fire you, and they'd be right to do so.

> Today, it is known that, when properly prompted, LLMs write better code than humans

Funniest shit I read all day.

Have you actuallynused frontier models?

Sorry, I only have one spot for "funniest shit I read all day", so you only get close second.

Look mate, I don't like this future we're in, but I can't wishcast it away or pretend it's still mid-2025 and the slop machine is bound to collapse aaaaaany minute now. The technology is here and it's an absolute game changer. A lot of people who derived ego satisfaction from slinging code are going to find themselves handily outcompeted by a machine. And the best coders of the past—the Linuses and Carmacks of the world—are now welcoming our new robot overlords.

I kind of love this analogy, actually, because Taylorism and scientific management also had serious downsides for the employees involved. That kind of micromanagement leads directly to burnout and elimination of supposed "wasted movement" in search of repeated optimized motions leads directly to RSI and workplace injury. But if the workers are just replaceable cogs in the machine, who cares? Certainly it boosted productivity.

> If you refuse to use LLMs on the job, you are stealing from your employer. Your boss has every right to fire you, and they'd be right to do so.

So now it's our chance to be abused to improve the bottom line.

Before Taylorism, line workers were worked to the bone. Taylor was one of the first to identify that 8-hour workdays and frequent, short breaks actually boosted productivity.

Although one of Taylor's quotes has special resonance in the AI era: "In the past the man has been first; in the future the system must come first."

Programming was a job where the man has long been first. That era is coming to a close.

It's possible I've accidentally swallowed some labor union propaganda during my education, but that's a much too rosy interpretation of Taylorism. Line workers have always been up against pressure to be worked to the bone, before and after Taylor. As you've already pointed out, workers were getting away with soldiering pre-Taylor, and then weren't immediately post-Taylor. I recall something about subsequent labor strikes. The very working conditions he helped impose would have made for the ideal scenario for him to identify just how much a shorter work day and short breaks were needed. But then, at least in the US, we didn't get the Fair Labor Standards Act for nearly three decades later.

Also, Robert Owen had Frederick Taylor beat on the 8 hour workday front by like a century. Maybe Taylorism was, in practice, one of the last straws. Or maybe it was Taylor's scientific support that helped convince the legislature an 8 hour workday was needed. Personally, I have my interpretation based on the evidence, and I don't see it boding well for software engineering as a profession in our immediate future.