But when you lead there’s a level of trust in the people who are going to implement. You may still have a high level view of what’s going on, but that’s different from sweating the details. It also is different from bottoms up building those details where consequences become clear in thought.
I’ve noticed the pressure to keep velocity and move forward means I’m less sure of those details compared to before. LLMs are also inconsistent in the work they do - some of it is brilliant, other parts are idiotic. It’s totally different than what you’d get when leading humans.
> But when you lead there’s a level of trust in the people who are going to implement.
"Trust but verify". This is why you have QA processes, testing, checklists etc. All the sanity checks that got thrown away in the web tech rush pre-AI.
You state this as if the only way you personally would manage this would be to craft each line yourself after deep contemplation, which may be true for you.
But it's not a universal at all. You have to apply engineering thinking to human and LLM organization, and part of the damage caused by scrum has been to ignore this entirely. How can you produce a system where you can bound the output to be what is understood? It must be possible because managers all over the earth do it all the time.
I’ve noticed the pressure to keep velocity and move forward means I’m less sure of those details compared to before. LLMs are also inconsistent in the work they do - some of it is brilliant, other parts are idiotic. It’s totally different than what you’d get when leading humans.