From engineering to ontology

3/23/2026

1.5 years ago I was writing code completely manually, without any AI assistance. Then, gradually I started to use ChatGPT for a local coding advice. As of March, 2026, I use various AI coding agents to create low-level code, while I focus on high-level architecture and business logic. My workflow has changed from “writing code” to “directing AI agents to write code”. The focus has changed from “how to implement” to “what to implement”.

Engineers are more architects and project managers than manual laborers. Any person can create software (even faster) without writing a single line of code.

It became cheaper, faster and easier to create software, which is a good news. People now have more time to spend on high-level creation rather than on low-level implementation. Where it leads us?

Human as a function

AI will replace humans in many jobs which are based on formalized patterns because AI is better than humans at following instructions and performing tasks. Since worker’s replaceability is an important factor in the current economic system, and since a human in many contemporary jobs is merely a function that performs a specific task, it is likely that many jobs will be automated. Thus, humans will have more time to question their role in the world, especially how they’re different from AI and what unique value they can bring to the table.

Give me your name

“So out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.” — Genesis 2:19 (ESV)

Naming things means describing their essence and purpose. When everybody can create software, the value is in defining the direction of development and deciding whether it’s worth creating at all. Building a perfectly functional version (in a minute) of the wrong thing will be a classic mistake. Materializing ideas into software will be very fast. Thus, ideas should be carefully thought through.

More resources (people, AI) will be allocated into “why” rather than “how”. Isn’t it a good news? Humans have a chance to feel their nature at what they’re good at, rather than trying to compete with AI in areas where it excels. I can dug holes, but I wouldn’t be able to dig them as fast as a machine. But I can think about why I need to dig a hole, and what I want to achieve by digging it.

The “how” stage, though, will also get more creative attention. Which visuals, fonts complement the idea? Since the utility can be cloned fast, the only way to differentiate is through answering the Why and presenting the unique perspective — also, by utilizing the way (the “how”) to present the idea.

What I like about this transformation is that humans spend less time doing routine things and more time on high-level creation.