> Is “unagentic engineer” a euphemism for human/not-AI?
No, it refers to people that are not "high agency", i.e. they might be smart and competent but need guidance on what to work on, as opposed to taking initiative themselves.
That's beside the point, we all know that one terrible engineer who is just incredibly productive and completely lacks any self-critical instincts. With LLMs this type of output becomes much more easy to produce, so what are you going to do if you're asked to review 10x the amount of code that you're reviewing right now?
Great article. I have an observation to the "engineers should know this and do good engineering" though: I work for a payments company and there is a fundamental career problem with becoming the ledger ninja: It's not enough work, and it's eventually done!
I've seen the following major phases of this work: 1) Build the ledger (correctly), and it will work well for a while. 2) Add convenience code for the callers, assist finance in doing reports/journaling, fix some minor bugs, take care of the operational bits (keep the database up). 3) Reach the scaling limits of your initial approach, but there are some obvious (not trivial) things to do: re-implement the transaction creation directly in the database (10x perf gain), maybe sharding, maybe putting old tx into colder storage, etc.
This is spread out over a while, so I haven't seen it be a full-time job, even at real startup-level (+10% MoM) growth. Even if it was, that's one person, not a whole team. I understand engineers that instead are pulled towards projects where they are in higher demand.
In another comment somebody said ledger systems are trivial when done right and super hard when done wrong - so if you did a good job it kinda looks like you just created 3 tables and some code. That seems thankless, and job searching as this type of specialist is harder than just being a generalist.
I mean, tigerbeetle looks extremely cool (I've watched the project develop since its inception), and I trust them to be rock-solid. But saying "just use this project that is very new and unproven, written in a new and unproven programming language" is just pretty unserious. At least talk about pros, cons, risks, and tradeoffs.
No, it refers to people that are not "high agency", i.e. they might be smart and competent but need guidance on what to work on, as opposed to taking initiative themselves.