Discussion about this post

User's avatar
M. Mohammad's avatar

I'm on the wrong side of your chart — software delivery, the 75% column. So take this as a field report from the exposed side.

The number is real but it measures the wrong thing. It's how much of the task surface AI touches, not how much of the job it does. Last year I ran sixty stakeholder interviews on a delivery project and had AI aggregate them. It was genuinely useful and it saved me hours. It also invented requirements nobody asked for, quietly turned two groups who disagreed into one group who agreed, and dropped every exception case because exceptions are the part people mention as an aside.

Every one of those failures is the same failure: judgment, sequencing, relationships. The exact three things you say protect construction.

So the honest version might be that construction isn't safe and software isn't doomed. It's that the residual is the same everywhere — it's just a bigger share of the job on your side. We're both still doing the part the model can't do. You just have more of it.

Which makes your "build the AI-native team inside the judgment-heavy industry" point stronger than the report suggests, not weaker.

Justin Ullman's avatar

If you are reading this at your desk right now, you need to think about this article hard.

2 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?