[dangus]

I disagree with this idea on some level.

I don’t think AI is very good at “plan” compared to someone who is actually experienced with a toolset.

I think the more pertinent “falling behind” aspect for most people is the assumption that the models can’t do complex work. I.e., many people using the AI tools limit what they ask for because they are afraid of getting back bad code they have to fix.

It’s also important to be incredibly specific on what you want wherever possible.

I’ve also tried multiple agent workflows and have found them to generally be tiring and cluttered more than helpful.

Here’s a real life pro tip for you: don’t rush to become amazingly more efficient when a new tool comes along. The only benefactor of that attitude is your employer. I’d rather my employer think that AI is giving them a ~10% boost at best while my workload stays the same. I have a family, I don’t live to work, I work because I have to. Crazy brain-melting shit like multi-agent workflows is antithetical to that.

My last bit of feedback is that this reads too much like a LinkedIn post.

I see now that you’re a director of engineering, and so I now understand the LinkedIn influencer style going on here. Since you’re in a position of leadership, take my advice: don’t expect your ICs to pick up these insane thought leadership workflows that sound amazing on paper but end up causing pain, burnout, and low product quality for the engineers on your team who are actually in the trenches doing the work.

No, you won’t magically get 10x engineers and get to make your CTO happy. Don’t treat AI like a magic pill.

When the Covid-era tech overhiring correction ends, your best employees who have spent 2023-2026 getting squeezed and burned out but haven’t quit due to the job market will be the first to leave when the job market inevitably rebounds. These are the engineers whose dumbass bosses think shove AI down their throats and tell them that they aren’t agentmaxxing sloperator code enough.

[hoangnnguyen]

I appreciate you taking the time to write this. There are a few fair points here.

I agree that AI is not automatically better at planning than an experienced engineer. In fact, I would never outsource planning blindly. My point is not that AI replaces thinking. It is that planning becomes a collaborative loop. The engineer still owns the judgment. I also strong believe that human engineers are not going to be replaced by AI.

I also agree that many people under-ask AI because they assume it cannot handle complex work. That hesitation is real. In my experience, the bigger unlock is not complexity, but clarity. The more specific and constrained you are, the better the output. That part is 100 percent true.

On multi-agent workflows feeling tiring and cluttered, I understand that too. If it feels like mental overload, it is probably poorly designed. Multi-agent setups are not meant to increase cognitive stress. They are meant to reduce context switching and batch certain types of work. If they create chaos, the workflow needs redesign, not more pressure.

I also want to be very clear, this is not about squeezing more output from engineers or chasing 10x productivity. I do not believe in “AI as a magic pill” thinking.

Efficiency gains should create space. Not pressure. I believe if we can offload more things to AI, then we have more space to do a lot more innovative things.

If AI gives a team leverage, that leverage should go into better design, stronger testing, less firefighting, more sustainable pacing. Not into compressing people’s lives.

The last thing I want is engineers feeling like they burn out chasing some productivity narrative. That is not healthy, and it is not sustainable.

My article is about discipline in workflow, not about forcing intensity. The goal is long-term system quality and personal clarity, not squeezing hours out of people.

Thanks again for the sharing, it is a good perspective and I really appreciate it.