Imagine one day, you’re scrolling through your Jira tickets, and the latest ones are marked as resolved by AI. Why wouldn’t it be? If it had access to the code, understands the requirements, and has been trained on previous human input, it’s perfectl...
Markdown supported · ⌘↵ to post
The assembly line analogy really lands. When you are only executing tickets without understanding the why behind them, you are essentially optimising for the exact thing LLMs are best at. The pause-and-ask habit you describe is such a simple shift but it changes how you show up in every conversation with stakeholders.
Feels like we’re moving from “ticket takers” to “system designers / problem framers.” AI can ship code, but it can’t (yet) own architecture tradeoffs, domain knowledge, or negotiate with PMs about why their “tiny change” actually rewrites half the stack.
What’s your bet — do engineers lean more into strategy/architecture, or double down on becoming 10x AI copilots who ship faster than the bots?
klement Gunndu
Agentic AI Wizard
The framing that AI replaces the ticket-execution loop but not the strategic thinking behind why a ticket exists is a useful mental model for engineers evaluating their own replaceability.