alt Hacker NewsUltimately that's only an option if you can sustain the impact to your career (not getting promoted, or getting fired). My org (publicly traded, household name, <5k employees) is all-in on AI with the goal of having 100% of our code AI generated within the next year. We have all the same successes and failures as everyone else, there's nothing special about our case, but our technical leadership is fundamentally convinced that this is both viable and necessary, and will not be told otherwise.
People who disagree at all levels of seniority have been made to leave the organization.
Practically speaking, there's no sexy pitch you can make about doing quality grunt work. I've made that mistake virtually every time I've joined a company: I make performance improvements, I stabilize CI, I improve code readability, remove compiler warnings, you name it: but if you're not shipping features, if you're not driving the income needle, you have a much more difficult time framing your value to a non-engineering audience, who ultimately sign the paychecks.
Obviously this varies wildly by organization, but it's been true everywhere I've worked to varying degrees. Some companies (and bosses) are more self-aware than others, which can help for framing the conversation (and retaining one's sanity), but at the end of the day if I'm making a stand about how bad AI quality is, but my AI-using coworker has shipped six medium sized features, I'm not winning that argument.
It doesn't help that I think non-engineers view code quality as a technical boogeyman and an internal issue to their engineering divisions. Our technical leadership's attitude towards our incidents has been "just write better code," which... Well. I don't need to explain the ridiculousness of that statement in this forum, but it undermines most people's criticism of AI. Sure, it writes crap code and misses business requirements; but in the eyes of my product team? That's just dealing with engineers in general. It's not like they can tell the difference.
Replies
There is an alternative way make the necessary point here.. Let it go through with comments to the effect that you can not attest to the quality or efficacy of the code and let the organization suffer the consequences of this foray into LLM usage. If they can't use these tools responsibly and are unwilling to listen to the people who can, then they deserve to hit the inevitable quality wall Where endless passes through the AI still can't deliver working software and their token budget goes through the ceiling attempting to make it work.
Unfortunately not many companies seem to require engineers to cycle between "feature" and "maintainability" work - hence those looking for the low-hanging fruits and know how to virtue signal seem to build their career on "features" while engineers passionate about correct solutions are left to pay for it while also labelled as "inefficient" by management. It's all a clown show, especially now with vibe-coding - no wonder we have big companies having had multiple incidents since vibing started taking off.
Shipping “quality only” work for a long time can be stressful for your colleagues and the product teams.
You’re much better off mixing both (quality work and product features).
> My org [...] is all-in on AI with the goal of having 100% of our code AI generated within the next year.
> People who disagree at all levels of seniority have been made to leave the organization.
So either they're right (100% AI-generated code soon) and you'll be out of a job or they'll be wrong, but by then the smart people will have been gone for a while. Do you see a third future where next year you'll still have a job and the company will still have a future?