I dunno dude, it's getting scary fast. You tried a fable/5.6sol maximum effort on a chunky task yet?

Maybe in a few years being a good coder will be like being a good taxi driver with self driving. You know the best spots and the ai can't drive the most unusual roads but effectively 95% of all driving is self driving.

Or unemployed, the jury on that is still out.

Real question here, as I'm struggling with this and I'm not finding a lot of evidence to support my inclination (that you are correct).

Why would this person be more skilled? And more importantly, what does it mean to be "skilled" in the era of AI?

I'm trying to be open-minded to both sides, but I have senior engineers on my team with a fleet of agents, shipping code they don't fully understand, and... everything is fine. Stuff still breaks, we fix it. Clients ask "How does XYZ work?" and we say, "Not sure, let us get back to you." And they're totally fine with that answer.

Everything within me screams that this is wrong and we should have intimate familiarity with the system, but I cannot find any evidence that the path of "running a team" instead of "building engineering skill" is not going to work out fine in the long-run. (Yes, my comparison between "team" and "engineering skill" is a bit rough but I'm not interested in the semantics.)

All the evidence that I'm seeing in my own business, with senior engineers meeting clients' needs with autonomous agentic teams is that it's all fine, and while there are gaps, it's actually okay. Clients are happy. Software works 80-90% of the team exactly as it should. Bugs are fixed quickly. We ship more in 3 months than we previously could've shipped in a year. I'm baffled and frankly not as advanced as my devs (I still ask questions one by one to my agent, like a Real Caveman!)

It makes me wildly uncomfortable so I'm trying to wrestle with this. I want your statement to be true, but I just don't see evidence of that.