AI is restructuring engineering teams. A future model involves a small group of senior engineers defining processes and reviewing code, while AI and junior engineers handle production. This raises a critical question: how will junior engineers develop into senior architects in this new paradigm?

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.

In 10 years, AI will generate vast amounts of high-quality code, similar to the leap in image generation. The developer's role will shift from writing code to curation and design, exercising intent and critical judgment to select the best output from a sea of AI-generated options.

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.

Top-performing engineering teams are evolving from hands-on coding to a managerial role. Their primary job is to define tasks, kick off multiple AI agents in parallel, review plans, and approve the final output, rather than implementing the details themselves.

AI acts as a massive force multiplier for software development. By using AI agents for coding and code review, with humans providing high-level direction and final approval, a two-person team can achieve the output of a much larger engineering organization.

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.