Everyone is bragging about the wrong number. Claiming you shipped a feature in 20 minutes with AI is not a flex. It is a confession that you sped up the cheapest part of the job and skipped the expensive work.
Code generation was never the hard part. The real challenge has always been defining the requirements, cutting scope, naming constraints, and deciding how to prove the change is correct. When you skip that, AI just helps you ship the wrong thing faster. You are creating a trap where the gap between looks done and is done blows up. The model provides clean, confident code, but that does not tell you if it fits the system or what it will cost you in six months.
AI does not upgrade your engineering. It amplifies the loop you already had. Good judgment gets faster, but bad judgment gets faster too. Look at the reality of current workflows:
- People are wiping production databases because the output sounded confident and nobody read the diff.
- Review burden scales with how much code you accepted, not how much you wrote.
- Most breakages still trace back to unclear requirements, not bad generation.
These are engineering problems wearing a new mask. The skill that matters now is not prompting, which you can learn in a weekend. It is shaping the work through a clear sequence: requirements, identifying gaps, planning, small changes, review, and verification. Make your first prompt about the test that proves the work is right, not your last.
Every serious tool from Git to CI/CD was useless until teams rebuilt their workflow around it. The tool matters, but the workflow matters more. The engineers who win this phase will not be the ones who use AI the most. They will be the ones who slow the problem down before they speed the code up. Most people are using AI, but almost nobody is engineering with it. How are you adjusting your internal workflows to account for these verification gaps?
