There’s an ongoing debate about whether junior engineers are better or worse off in the age of AI.

Some argue that they’re worse off because they might miss learning fundamental principles, becoming trapped in the complexity created by AI-generated solutions. Others suggest they’re better off since they can quickly ask AI questions and gain immediate assistance.

However, the reality might be that neither is true. Throughout history, we’ve adapted to numerous technological shifts without significantly altering the proportion of capable engineers—though absolute numbers have increased as more people gain access to technology.

Being a capable engineer requires curiosity, and there’s no indication that the number of curious individuals has changed.

Interestingly, what is changing is how we identify good engineers.

Software engineering joins the ranks of more subjective fields like design or marketing. It may no longer be as clear-cut to define who qualifies as an engineer. Just as some marketers can convince others—and themselves—of their abilities without genuine competence, pseudo-engineers now have similar opportunities.