Answer to: How to deal with a programmer who acts as a proxy for AI?

A timely discussion, I think. Here's where I see things in early 2026: we have some really interesting new technologies that are being presented as being far more capable than they really are. To be clear, I am not saying these tools are not useful, I think we've only scratched the surface of what can be done with them. But they are definitely not operating as rational sentient 'agents' as so many people seem to believe. It's that last part which is the issue. People with expertise in specific skills tend to judge LLMs to be less capable in those skills and more capable in areas where they (the person) have limited expertise. That is, for example, a programmer will tend to think that LLMs are better at medicine than programming and a doctor will tend to believe that the LLMs are better at programming than medicine. This is sort of inevitable because of the way they work: they produce plausible outputs based on probabilistic processes. I'm likely not telling you anything you don't already know here. I just want to establish some context. What this means for you is that, if the management does not have deep technical skill, they may be convinced that these tools are more capable than they really are. I mean Sam Altman says they are genius-level entities, so, what's the problem? Experienced, skilled developers are in a bit of a bind here. Pushback against the idea that Agentic AI isn't all it's cracked up to be is often perceived as gatekeeping: the nerds just want to protect their guild. A lot of developers feel compelled to embrace the technology, even if they don't believe it actually has a net benefit. The situation you describe is sort of a worst case scenario, IMO. You are in the position of supporting/enabling a fundamentally flawed approach. This 'developer' is non-productive. I'd go as far as to say their productivity is negative. They are creating work for you. I'd wager it would take less time for you to just write the code and produce better quality than you are spending on babysitting this 'developer'. In other words, they can only appear to succeed due to you and other people. Management may perceive this as proof that the approach is working. AI slop is a big problem for many types of work these days and I'm not sure it's going to get any better soon. Given the reality of the situation, the best thing you could do here, IMO, is to let them POC an isolated solution without assistance. If they and their management are so confident that LLMs and unskilled operators are the future, then just do it. Show and prove. If the agents are wonderful, why do they need your help? Unfortunately, supporting this seems to be your job responsibility and it may be that their work is part of a larger solution. I think, ethically, as a consultant, you should try to help the management understand the reality of the situation. If it's truly the case that they really can't fire this person, they should probably be looking for some way to give them a role where they can't cause trouble and waste the time of skilled people. This person, based on your description, is a sunk cost employee and they should be minimizing the employee's drag on the organization, not giving them tools to help maximize their counterproductive output.