> For me it's that writing code is really enjoyable, and delegating it to AI is hell on earth.

It's very sad, for me.

Like I told someone recently - letting the LLM write my code for me is like letting the LLM play my video games for me.

If all I wanted was the achievement on my steam profile, then sure, it makes sense, but that achievement is not why I play video games.

I'm looking at all these people proudly showing off their video game achievements, gained just by writing specs, and I realise that all of them fail to realise that writing specs is a lower-skill activity than writing programs.

It also pays far, far less - a BA earns about half what an average dev earns. They're cosplaying at being BAs, not realising that they are now employed for a skill that pays less, and it's only a matter of time before the economics catch up to them.

I don't see a solution here.

This is a part of it, but I also feel like a Luddite (the historical meaning, not the derogatory slang).

I do use these tools, clearly see their potential, and know full well where this is going: capital is devaluing labor. My skills will become worthless. Maybe GP is right that at first only skilled developers can wield them to full effect, but it's obviously not going to stop there.

If I could destroy these things - as the Luddites tried - I would do so, but that's obviously impossible.

For now I'm forced to use them to stay relevant, and simply hope I can hold on to some kind of employment long enough to retire (or switch careers).

I resonate with that. I also find writing code super pleasurable. It's immediate stress relief for me, I love the focus and the flow. I end long hands-on coding sessions with a giddy high.

What I'm finding is that it's possible to integrate AI tools into your workflow in a big way without giving up on doing that, and I think there's a lot to say for a hybrid approach. The result of a fully-engaged brain (which still requires being right in there with the problem) using AI tools is better than the fully-hands-off way touted by some. Stay confident in your abilities and find your mix/work loop.

It's also possible to get a certain version of the rewards of coding from instrumenting AI tools. E.g. slicing up and sizing tasks to give to background agents that you can intuit from experience they'll be able to actually hand in a decent result on is similar to structuring/modularization exercises (e.g. with the goal to be readable or maintainable) in writing code, feelings-wise.

Hope: I want to become a stronger dev.

Reality: Promoted to management (of AI) without the raise or clout or the reward of mentoring.

AIs have made me realize that I don't actually care about writing code, even though it's all I've done for my entire career.

I care about creating stuff. How it gets from the idea in my brain to running on the computer, is immaterial to me.

I really like that I go from idea to reality in half the time.

exactly

thankfully I started down the FIRE route 20 years ago and now am more or less continuing to work because I want to

which will end for my employer if they insist on making me output generative excrement

There's room for both. Give AI the boilerplate, save the exciting stuff for you.

Woodworking is still a thing despite IKEA, big box furniture stores, etc.

Then don't delegate it to AI.

I like writing new, interesting code, but learning framework #400 with all its own idiosyncrasies has gotten really old.

I just rebuilt a fairly simple personal app that I've been maintaining for my family for nearly 30 years, and had a blast doing with an AI agent - I mostly used Claude Sonnet 4.5. I've been dreading this rebuild mostly because it's so boring; this is an app I built originally when I was 17, and I'm 43 now. I treated Claude basically like I'd treat my 17-year-old self, and I've added a bunch of features that I could never be assed to do before.

i agree. it seem like an expectation these days to use AI sometimes... for me i am happy not using it at all, i like to be able to say "I made this" :)