Contrary to fears of job replacement, AI coding systems expand what software can achieve, fueling a surge in project complexity and ambition. This trend increases the overall volume of code and the need for high-level human oversight, resulting in continued growth for developer roles rather than a reduction.

As AI coding agents generate vast amounts of code, the most tedious part of a developer's job shifts from writing code to reviewing it. This creates a new product opportunity: building tools that help developers validate and build confidence in AI-written code, making the review process less of a chore.

As AI generates more code than humans can review, the validation bottleneck emerges. The solution is providing agents with dedicated, sandboxed environments to run tests and verify functionality before a human sees the code, shifting review from process to outcome.

AI tools are automating code generation, reducing the time developers spend writing it. Consequently, the primary skill shifts to carefully reviewing and verifying the AI-generated code for correctness and security. This means a developer's time is now spent more on review and architecture than on implementation.

Simply deploying AI to write code faster doesn't increase end-to-end velocity. It creates a new bottleneck where human engineers are overwhelmed with reviewing a flood of AI-generated code. To truly benefit, companies must also automate verification and validation processes.

AI can produce scientific claims and codebases thousands of times faster than humans. However, the meticulous work of validating these outputs remains a human task. This growing gap between generation and verification could create a backlog of unproven ideas, slowing true scientific advancement.

As AI writes most of the code, the highest-leverage human activity will shift from reviewing pull requests to reviewing the AI's research and implementation plans. Collaborating on the plan provides a narrative journey of the upcoming changes, allowing for high-level course correction before hundreds of lines of bad code are ever generated.

While AI coding assistants appear to boost output, they introduce a "rework tax." A Stanford study found AI-generated code leads to significant downstream refactoring. A team might ship 40% more code, but if half of that increase is just fixing last week's AI-generated "slop," the real productivity gain is much lower than headlines suggest.

It's infeasible for humans to manually review thousands of lines of AI-generated code. The abstraction of review is moving up the stack. Instead of checking syntax, developers will validate high-level plans, two-sentence summaries, and behavioral outcomes in a testing environment.