Yes, you certainly still do have to think. But you’re thinking about how to isolate risk via architecture and about which languages the AI can most naturally work in for a given task.
You’re thinking: Should I put a protobuf here and build a separate service? Which side should own the protocol? How do I ensure the AI never couples concerns A and B? Can we prove this works with smarter automated testing, or do we need additional manual QA in this critical area before release?
Port my whole legacy codebase to another language with no guidance is a novelty problem. It is not comparable to what professionally managed AI driven development actually looks like.
You’re thinking: Should I put a protobuf here and build a separate service? Which side should own the protocol? How do I ensure the AI never couples concerns A and B? Can we prove this works with smarter automated testing, or do we need additional manual QA in this critical area before release?
Port my whole legacy codebase to another language with no guidance is a novelty problem. It is not comparable to what professionally managed AI driven development actually looks like.