Yeah I'd love to hear more about that. Like the way I imagine things working currently is "get requirement", "implement requirement", more or less following existing patterns and not doing too much thinking or changing of the existing structure.
But what I'd love to see is, if it has an engineering design step, could it step back and say "we're starting to see this system evolve to a place where a <CQRS, event-sourcing, server-driven-state-machine, etc> might be a better architectural match, and so here's a proposal to evolve things in that direction as a first step."
Something like Kent Beck's "for each desired change, make the change easy (warning: this may be hard), then make the easy change." If we can get to a point where AI tools can make those kinds of tradeoffs, that's where I think things get slightly dangerous.
OTOH if AI models are writing all the code, and AI models have contexts that far exceed what humans can keep in their head at once, then maybe for these agents everything is an easy change. In which case, well, I guess having human SWEs in the loop would do more harm than good at that point.
But what I'd love to see is, if it has an engineering design step, could it step back and say "we're starting to see this system evolve to a place where a <CQRS, event-sourcing, server-driven-state-machine, etc> might be a better architectural match, and so here's a proposal to evolve things in that direction as a first step."
Something like Kent Beck's "for each desired change, make the change easy (warning: this may be hard), then make the easy change." If we can get to a point where AI tools can make those kinds of tradeoffs, that's where I think things get slightly dangerous.
OTOH if AI models are writing all the code, and AI models have contexts that far exceed what humans can keep in their head at once, then maybe for these agents everything is an easy change. In which case, well, I guess having human SWEs in the loop would do more harm than good at that point.