While AI accelerates code generation, it creates significant new chokepoints. The high volume of AI-generated code leads to "pull request fatigue," requiring more human reviewers per change. It also overwhelms automated testing systems, which must run full cycles for every minor AI-driven adjustment, offsetting initial productivity gains.

Beyond model capabilities and process integration, a key challenge in deploying AI is the "verification bottleneck." This new layer of work requires humans to review edge cases and ensure final accuracy, creating a need for entirely new quality assurance processes that didn't exist before.

A Berkeley Haas study finds AI doesn't reduce work but intensifies it through 'task expansion.' Professionals use AI to venture into adjacent roles—like product managers writing code—widening their job scope and increasing total output, rather than simply doing their old job faster.

AI agents function like junior engineers, capable of generating code that introduces bugs, security flaws, or maintenance debt. This increases the demand for senior engineers who can provide architectural oversight, review code, and prevent system degradation, making their expertise more critical than ever.

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.

Even powerful AI tools don't produce a final, polished product. This "last mile" problem creates an opportunity for humans who master AI tools and then refine, integrate, and complete the work. These "finisher" roles are indispensable as there is no single AI solution to rule them all.

Research highlights "work slop": AI output that appears polished but lacks human context. This forces coworkers to spend significant time fixing it, effectively offloading cognitive labor and damaging perceptions of the sender's capability and trustworthiness.

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.

As AI generates more code, the core engineering task evolves from writing to reviewing. Developers will spend significantly more time evaluating AI-generated code for correctness, style, and reliability, fundamentally changing daily workflows and skill requirements.