Practically speaking, there's no sexy pitch you can make about doing quality grunt 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).

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.

> 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?

Hi thanks for this brilliant feature. It will really improve the product. However it needs a little bit more work before we can merge it into our main product. 1) The new feature does not follow the existing API guidelines found here: see examples an and b. 2) The new feature does not use our existing input validation and security checking code, see example. Once the following points have been addressed we will be happy to integrate it. All the best. The ball is now in their court and the feature should come back better

> ... I make performance improvements, I stabilize CI, I improve code readability, remove compiler warnings, you name it ... These are exactly the kind of tasks that I ask an AI tool to perform. Claude, Codex, et al are terrible at innovation. What they are good at is regurgitating patterns they've seen before, which often mean refactoring something into a more stable/common format. You can paste compiler warnings and errors into an agentic tool's input box and have it fix them for you, with a good chance for success. I feel for your position within your org, but these tools are definitely shaking things up. Some tasks will be given over entirely to agentic tools.