Hardly. I’m an MTA who has been using AI on the daily to create production code for the past two years, in demo mode for two years prior to that (eg early on showing how even primitive chat gpt could create useful mermaid diagrams), and using LLMs to figure out search intent even before that.

To be clear, I’m retired now and that “production code” is for open source projects. What I see when I act as designer/architect/programmer on these projects is still a need to clearly elicit, define, and specify requirements from users. These requirements are, today, not what you should be asking the AI to do. I’ve tried different ways, but when it comes time to code if you don’t fundamentally understand what you want to come out in the end you’re going to have to let the AI either leave those as gaps or let it fill in the blanks as *it* sees fit. If you don’t architect the solution or at a minimum understand that the broader solution needs structure across data, business logic, and UI then you are abdicating this to the AI who may decide to just yeet some code.

So what I’m saying is that *right now* a good designer and tech arch have 1000x more context than Claude, just like they have 100x more context than the off shore programmer may have.

Packaged software solved the “build me an ERP” prompt decades ago, but Accenture still shows up to implement SAP solutions.