I'm not a fan of the rise of so-called influencers. They tend to be inauthentic when hawking stuff, and the format in which they do so can be "cringe," as the kids say. But the real problem is that "influence" is not the same as "expertise."
I first started using AI agents a little over two years ago. It was pretty exciting, and super useful for figuring out a novel (to me) problem I was trying to solve for a code camp talk. I could see the potential, especially in writing tests. Today it's a night-and-day improvement, though it does feel like we've stalled a little in the last six months. My point is that it's been an important, dare I say dominant, part of my toolbox for quite a bit.
If I had to guess, most people have about the same amount of experience that I do. But LinkedIn is littered with AI titles ("AI Workflow Architect" is my favorite today). Have these folks really gained more experience than the rest of us? Isn't putting "AI" in your title a little like saying "Coding Coder?" Certainly I carve out space for people who actually build and train models, and write the algorithms that drive them, but I put those folks in the same category as OS kernel, device driver and 3D engine developers.
In record time, I think we've reached a place where we can just assume that software people use AI tools. It's no less common than using an IDE. This does beg the question, if everyone uses AI, and no one is special, how do you stand out? I think we need to get back to looking at outcomes.
No comments yet.