The guy is also a complete tool. I'd point out that what he described wasn't actually what they needed, and that there functionality was ... strange and didn't actually do anything useful. We'd be told to just do as we where being told, seeing as they where the ones paying the bills. Sometimes we'd read between the lines, and just deliver what was actually needed, then we'd be told just do as we where told next time, and they'd then use the code we wrote anyway. At some point we got tired of the complaining and just did exactly as the tasks described, complete with tests that showed that everything worked as specified. Then we where told that our deliveries didn't work, because that wasn't what they'd asked for, but couldn't tell us where we misunderstood the Jira task. Plus the tests showed that the code functioned as specified.
Even if the Jira tasks are in a state where it seems like you could feed them directly to an LLM, there's no context (or incorrect context) and how is a chatbot to know that the author of the task is a moron?
Maybe for the most mundane, repetitive tasks that's true.
But I'd argue that the code is the full specification, so if you're going to fully specify it you might as well just write the code and then you'll actually have to be confronted with your mistaken assumptions.
Does it matter?
The chatbot could deliver exactly what was asked for (even if it wasn't what was needed) without any angst or interpersonal issues.
Don't get me wrong. I feel you. I've been there, done that.
OTOH, maybe we should leave the morons to their shiny new toys and let them get on with specifying enough rope to hang themselves from the tallest available structure.
It can make a vague ticket precise and that can be an easy platform to have discussions with stakeholders.
Thank you for sharing this workflow. I have low tolerance for LLM written text, but this seems like a really good use case.
I find having an LLM create tickets for itself to implement to be an effective tool that I rarely have to provide feedback for at all.
This seems like greybeards complaining that people who don't write assembly by hand.
From time to time I have talked over a ticket with an LLM and gotten back what I think is a useful analysis of the problem and put it into the text or comments and I find my peeps tend to think these are TLDR.
An LLM will be just as verbose as you ask it to be. The default response can be very chatty, but you can figure out how to ask it to give results in various lengths.
Agentic AI can now do 20 rounds of lobbying with all stake holders as long as it’s over something like slack.
This is how most non-technical stakeholders feel when you probe for consistent, thorough requirements and a key professional skill for many more senior developers and consultants is in mastering the soft skills that keep them attentive and sufficiently helpful. Those skills are not generic sycophancy, but involve personal attunement to the stakeholder, patience (exercising and engendering), and cycling the right balance between persistence and de-escalation.
Or do you just mean there will be some PM who acts as proxy between for the stakeholder on the ticket, but still needs to get them onto the phone and into meetings so the answers can be secured?
Because in the real world, the prior is outlandish and the latter doesn't gain much.
this already exists.
