Where to Draw the Line
TL;DR
This article describes the new discipline that emerges: one built on behavioral specifications, engineered dissent, and continuous instrumented oversight rather than authorship, and argues there is a class of judgment the authors should refuse to delegate, even to a machine that appears capable of it.
Abstract
Which decisions should not be handed over to LLMs? In the teams that have leaned hardest into AI, models already write most, and sometimes all, of the code. Increasingly, no human reads that code before it ships. I argue that this inevitable automation is only replacing the visible artifact of software engineering, not the actual job. What was never automatable in the first place—deciding what to build, judging whether the result serves its purpose, and answering when it does not—now becomes the entire role. Drawing on observations from teams furthest along this path, in this article I describe the new discipline that emerges: one built on behavioral specifications, engineered dissent, and continuous instrumented oversight rather than authorship. I also confront an uncomfortable consequence: We are demanding senior judgment while eliminating the work that produces it. Finally, I argue there is a class of judgment we should refuse to delegate, even to a machine that appears capable of it.