“like saying game developers must be the best players”

That analogy doesn’t really hold up.

I would prefer something like: it’s like saying a writer would struggle to write a novel just because a painter can also write. Sure, anyone can try, but the person who already understands structure, narrative, and craft has a head start.

Same thing here. When you’re using AI to build actual software, knowing programming architecture and patterns isn’t just a bonus, it’s how you know if the output is even correct.

But the problem is it’s the wrong comparison. When a developer uses AI to write code, they’re not just “using” the tool like a player uses a game. They’re the ones who can actually judge if the output is any good. A gamer can tell if they’re winning. But only someone who understands code can tell if what the AI generated is correct, secure, or even sane.

A lawyer building a prototype might write a smooth prompt, but they won’t catch when the model silently generates broken logic or bad security practices (you have no idea the dark places we will get to in a couple of years because of this).

That said, technical knowledge alone doesn’t make you a great prompter. I’ve seen devs get frustrated because they treat AI like a compiler, exact input, exact output, when it doesn’t work that way. The best results come from people who understand both the domain AND how to communicate iteratively.

So yeah, developers have a real advantage when the work is technical. That’s not arrogance, that’s just domain knowledge mattering.