Well, there are quite a few frames to think about. What about the unintended consequences of building something for a worldview at the time? Then the next generation of stewards take over, do not have the same understanding of the problem the system solved and different ideas on how to use the system. That's definitely something worth writing about. Stewardship in software is a real and common aspect of the greater system we all live in, and has unknown consequences with each generation that takes over. When you step in as a gen-1 builder, you should probably consider what it is you are about to build.

I agree with your assessment. Read the article and did not come back thinking an LLM authored. I read more LLM content now than from humans and while there were fingerprints of LLM writing, it still read as institutionalized English. It seems like we are in a weird transition period where LLMs trained on proper English prose are now training humans to identify prose that is apparently not common enough to be labelled as human authored. So what are people looking for in writing? The mistakes, disjointed sentences, less em dashes?

I've spent some time trying to understand what is possible with agent definitions. This post is an exploration in building them out and the various layers they can act on.

This has been my attempt at wrangling the new A.I. assisted development that seems to be overtaking the software engineering profession. I jumped head first into LLM development after observing the trends from the last year and it appears this process might be a viable path forward.

I’ve had similar feelings how can I trust this if I no longer write the code directly.

I wrote an /assess tool. I designed it to be token light but assesses on everything I could do to regain trust and help AI to improve my code base not by add features but by adding discipline.