The problem is management confusing "AI can process text" with "AI can replace judgment." AI is great when the task is bounded, like summarizing docs or triaging info. Understanding why a legacy system was built a certain way requires context that lives in people's heads, not in the codebase.
The C-suite (and the Board) jumped on to it as a way to reduce headcount and cost, and have stuck their heads in the sand when data shows project velocity is slowing, and bugs are getting created more frequently. Primarily because they have attempted to replace experienced teams with Cursor and cheap outsourcing.
The allure is apparently too strong to face reality that AI can be a powerful addition to the toolbox for productivity, but it is not a replacement for actual skill and experience.
The problem is management confusing "AI can process text" with "AI can replace judgment." AI is great when the task is bounded, like summarizing docs or triaging info. Understanding why a legacy system was built a certain way requires context that lives in people's heads, not in the codebase.
Yes.
The C-suite (and the Board) jumped on to it as a way to reduce headcount and cost, and have stuck their heads in the sand when data shows project velocity is slowing, and bugs are getting created more frequently. Primarily because they have attempted to replace experienced teams with Cursor and cheap outsourcing.
The allure is apparently too strong to face reality that AI can be a powerful addition to the toolbox for productivity, but it is not a replacement for actual skill and experience.