What is the story about?
Artificial intelligence may be helping senior engineers become more efficient, but could it also be quietly breaking the career ladder that built them? That’s the paradox Zoho and Arattai co-founder Sridhar Vembu has flagged in a recent post on X (formerly Twitter).
Vembu’s observation touches a nerve in tech circles already anxious about how generative AI is transforming workplaces. His post captures a key dilemma that if AI takes over entry-level coding, how will new engineers gain the experience they need to eventually become senior engineers? This questions the entire future generation work flow.
In his post, Vembu notes that AI makes senior architects “more productive” while reducing the need for junior engineers. According to him, the role of the architect now extends to understanding both the business requirements and the technology stack deeply enough to “guide the AI and fine-tune its output.”
But therein lies the conundrum. “If we don’t have junior engineers,” he writes, “we don’t get to train the next generation of architects — after all, how does someone become a software architect without being a junior engineer first?”
It’s a fair question that gets to the heart of how AI is changing not just workflows, but the very structure of career progression in the tech industry. For decades, the path from junior engineer to senior architect has been well-trodden, fuelled by years of hands-on problem-solving and code wrangling. AI, however, is automating much of that grunt work, potentially leaving fewer opportunities for newcomers to build foundational skills.
Vembu admits he’s “still thinking through how this gets resolved”, but the concern echoes a growing sentiment among founders and hiring managers who worry that the AI revolution could create a “missing generation” of engineers, people technically literate but without the depth of experience that comes from years of debugging, maintaining, and scaling real-world systems.
Vembu’s post has reignited a broader debate that’s been simmering across the tech world. Many argue that while AI is a powerful productivity booster, it could also make it harder for newcomers to get their first break. Entry-level positions, once the training ground for tomorrow’s leaders, are increasingly being automated away or consolidated under smaller, more senior teams aided by AI tools.
On the flip side, optimists suggest that AI might simply change, not erase, the learning curve. Instead of spending years fixing bugs or writing boilerplate code, young engineers could focus on designing prompts, interpreting AI outputs, and understanding system-level design earlier in their careers. Some believe this shift could even accelerate their growth, if, of course, they have mentors willing to guide them through it.
Still, Vembu’s a question lingers, can a generation of “AI-native” engineers become true architects without the years of apprenticeship that once defined the role?
Vembu’s observation touches a nerve in tech circles already anxious about how generative AI is transforming workplaces. His post captures a key dilemma that if AI takes over entry-level coding, how will new engineers gain the experience they need to eventually become senior engineers? This questions the entire future generation work flow.
What Sridhar Vembu said and what it means
In his post, Vembu notes that AI makes senior architects “more productive” while reducing the need for junior engineers. According to him, the role of the architect now extends to understanding both the business requirements and the technology stack deeply enough to “guide the AI and fine-tune its output.”
But therein lies the conundrum. “If we don’t have junior engineers,” he writes, “we don’t get to train the next generation of architects — after all, how does someone become a software architect without being a junior engineer first?”
AI makes senior architects more productive and reduces the need for junior engineers. The architect needs to understand the requirements as well as the technology stack well, to be able to guide the AI and fine tune its output.
But if we don't have junior engineers, we don't get…
— Sridhar Vembu (@svembu) January 9, 2026
It’s a fair question that gets to the heart of how AI is changing not just workflows, but the very structure of career progression in the tech industry. For decades, the path from junior engineer to senior architect has been well-trodden, fuelled by years of hands-on problem-solving and code wrangling. AI, however, is automating much of that grunt work, potentially leaving fewer opportunities for newcomers to build foundational skills.
Vembu admits he’s “still thinking through how this gets resolved”, but the concern echoes a growing sentiment among founders and hiring managers who worry that the AI revolution could create a “missing generation” of engineers, people technically literate but without the depth of experience that comes from years of debugging, maintaining, and scaling real-world systems.
AI vs entry-level jobs
Vembu’s post has reignited a broader debate that’s been simmering across the tech world. Many argue that while AI is a powerful productivity booster, it could also make it harder for newcomers to get their first break. Entry-level positions, once the training ground for tomorrow’s leaders, are increasingly being automated away or consolidated under smaller, more senior teams aided by AI tools.
On the flip side, optimists suggest that AI might simply change, not erase, the learning curve. Instead of spending years fixing bugs or writing boilerplate code, young engineers could focus on designing prompts, interpreting AI outputs, and understanding system-level design earlier in their careers. Some believe this shift could even accelerate their growth, if, of course, they have mentors willing to guide them through it.
Still, Vembu’s a question lingers, can a generation of “AI-native” engineers become true architects without the years of apprenticeship that once defined the role?
