AI Engineer Summit
November 12, 2026Main stage3 min read

Keep the human inside the creative loop

Thariq Shihipar starts with predictions he got wrong. Agents did not settle into one permanently correct tool interface. Work he expected to stay inside familiar web frameworks expanded into other languages and applications. Capabilities kept moving beyond the boundary he had drawn around them.

Thariq ShihiparIndependent

Day 2 livestream · 8:37:57–8:56:44 on YouTube. The player starts and stops at this session’s boundaries.

Introduction

Thariq Shihipar starts with predictions he got wrong. Agents did not settle into one permanently correct tool interface. Work he expected to stay inside familiar web frameworks expanded into other languages and applications. Capabilities kept moving beyond the boundary he had drawn around them.

That history makes him wary of treating today's workflow as destiny. Better models can do more, but it does not follow that people should surrender every part of making software that they enjoy or understand. His talk asks what the human experience of building should become as the machine's contribution grows.

Capability does not dictate one interface

Shihipar contrasts the uneven frontier of what a model can do with the large interior of tasks it can already perform in multiple ways. At the frontier, a particular technique may be necessary to make something work at all. Inside that boundary, there is more freedom to choose an interface around human needs.

He also explores the hypothetical endpoint of a model that performs a task perfectly. In that hypothetical world, some verification work would no longer be necessary. He is not claiming current coding agents have reached that point. The thought experiment is a way to separate enduring human goals from compensations for current model limitations.

This changes the design question. Instead of asking only how to squeeze another task through the present agent interface, ask what a better interaction would feel like once the model is capable enough to support it.

The agent can finish the move and still lose the player

His concrete example is a two-dimensional fighting game inspired by familiar action and elemental-combat ideas. He asks an agent to implement a rock throw. The agent fills in many details: how the projectile moves, how large it is, how it charges, and what it collides with.

The feature exists, but the creator no longer understands all of the character's behavior. Decisions that determine the feel of the game have been made at a distance. Waiting for the agent also interrupts his concentration. The problem is not just whether the generated code runs. It is whether the workflow lets him remain engaged in shaping the game.

One answer would be to accept that distance as the inevitable price of automation. Shihipar instead changes the boundary between agent work and human work.

8:52:35 ↗

Let the agent build the primitives

The game can have an engine layer that the agent largely owns and a more readable layer where the designer edits behavior. The latter should expose meaningful concepts and units rather than force every creative adjustment through a large implementation request.

Editing game behavior directly in the development environment At 08:52:35, Shihipar shows the game project and its behavior code. The screenshot documents the live editing surface; the small source text is not reproduced as a verified code listing.

His examples include the properties and origins of the rock attack. Changing its size or behavior should be a direct, legible operation. The agent can help construct the primitives and support completion in the editor, while the human stays close to the effect of each adjustment.

This is a different division of labor from asking for a whole feature and reviewing the finished diff. It uses the model to create an environment in which a person can make many small decisions quickly. The value is not only fewer keystrokes. It is preserving the continuous connection between intention, experiment, and response.

Rules and structure help maintain that boundary. The human-readable layer should describe what actually happens, rather than become a second specification that drifts away from the implementation. The abstraction earns its place by making the game easier to shape.

Better automation can make room for more craft

Shihipar presents this as an experiment, not a completed universal method. Other domains may need different primitives and different editing surfaces. Better models may make new languages, databases, servers, or operating-system interactions practical. The human-computer interaction problem remains: which decisions should be immediate and visible to the person doing the work?

His broader analogy joins cheap production with renewed attention to quality and craft. If generating an implementation is less scarce, the experience of choosing, refining, and understanding can become more important rather than less.

That is the sweet side of his argument. The lesson of improving models need not be that every person becomes a supervisor waiting for opaque batches of work. It can also be that we have more freedom to build tools around the parts of creation people want to do. The model's growing capability supplies the material. The interface determines whether the human still gets to play.

Full transcript 290 timestamped passages

Machine-generated source transcript; recognition errors remain. Timestamps and subtitles use the selected source recording’s clock, not clip-relative time. Section links use cited source moments; sections without a verified moment return to the talk start.

8:37:57Amazing.

8:37:58That was such a cool animation.

8:38:00But, so it's not World of Warcraft.

8:38:02I'm not sure what I'm doing here.

8:38:05But hey guys, I'm Tharik, nice to meet you.

8:38:09Yeah, I wanted to talk to you about a couple things I've been thinking about since I left

8:38:14Anthropik.

8:38:15It's been a wild year and there are a bunch of reflections I've had.

8:38:23And my conclusion is about what I'm calling the sweet side of the bitter lesson and the

8:38:29ways I've been wrong.

8:38:29So I think I got a lot of things right this year.

8:38:34I think I was right about models being able to edit and generate videos.

8:38:40I was talking about this sometime in June last year.

8:38:44I was right about models being able to use HTML to understand their work.

8:38:49And I was right about models being able to help you understand and figure out your unknown,

8:38:55to help plan and learn about things.

8:38:58So these were all things I was like right about and I was happy and I think that like a lot of you might be incorporating this sort of stuff in your work

8:39:07But I've been wrong a lot too and I think this is one of those things in AI where you sort of just like

8:39:12Memory hold the things that you're wrong about and you're like oh like I was just always expecting you know AI to be great

8:39:19But here are some of the things I've been wrong about so first like bash is all you need

8:39:23I think there was this moment where the agents were really good at using Bash and Cloud Code

8:39:28was built around the Bash tool.

8:39:30And so people are like, well, let's turn everything into a CLI.

8:39:35There's just going to be Bash and CLIs and that's going to take over the world.

8:39:40That's actually kind of not how it turned out.

8:39:43I actually prefer MCP to CLIs now, but now there's also code mode and skills and progressive

8:39:48disclosure.

8:39:49There are so many other ways that agents can act on the world.

8:39:55And the fact that they were using Bash was just like this weird remnant

8:40:00of them being trained in a certain way at the start.

8:40:05Then there's React is all you need. I think for a moment it seemed like the models were really, really good at writing React.

8:40:11And so if you wanted to create an AI-enabled app, you should figure out how to use React.

8:40:17Like, you should use React Native, you should use, you know, like, you should just make

8:40:20everything on the web.

8:40:24And that also has not been true.

8:40:26I think, like, now, you know, models can write it in HTML, they can write it in React, they

8:40:30can write it in Swift, they can write it in the Figma proprietary JSON format, and they'll

8:40:36all look roughly the same, right?

8:40:38And so I was afraid that, like, you know, the models have been trained on React, and

8:40:42so we'd just be writing React forever, and React would be, like, the last language almost,

8:40:46right?

8:40:46And that's almost certainly not true, right?

8:40:48I think a lot of people are writing their own languages now.

8:40:53And I think one of the other things I was really concerned about

8:40:56was like diffusion models will kind of like eat art.

8:40:58Like it would just be like, you know,

8:41:00we wouldn't have any control over these models

8:41:02or the kind of art that these models are creating,

8:41:05but it would just like create the most beautiful stuff.

8:41:07And that hasn't been true at all.

8:41:09Like I think now LLMs can make art through code,

8:41:13through controlling your computer and using, you know,

8:41:15Blender or Photoshop or Figma or whatever you'd like.

8:41:20And so these were all fears I had about, I think, the bitter lesson,

8:41:29our alien intelligence, the shoggoth, these are all words we use, I think,

8:41:34to describe this kind of fear that the models will just have this way of doing things

8:41:41and it will be weird and alien to us and we just need to accept it.

8:41:44You just have to submit to this foreign intelligence.

8:41:49But that's just like, I don't think that's what happened.

8:41:54And so I think the question I come back to a lot is like, okay, how can we be AGI-pilled and human-centered?

8:42:00And what can we learn about this progression?

8:42:04What can I learn about what I was wrong about?

8:42:07So I think this is really, really important because software engineers are the leading edge of AI adoption.

8:42:12Right? Like anything that is happening to software will happen to knowledge work and other parts of the economy.

8:42:18And so I think how we deal and engage with AI is how other people will as well.

8:42:26And I really enjoyed the different talks here talking about things like, yeah, fighting swap.

8:42:30I think we're the first defense for that, right? Or like being more ambitious.

8:42:34this, what I'd like to think about it as AI is both at the same time an industrial revolution

8:42:42and a renaissance, right?

8:42:43And I think this year was really about the industrial revolution, right?

8:42:48Like we use the word software factories very often.

8:42:53And like just sort of like turning software from this like craft that was very unreliable

8:43:01and hard to execute on into something that is not the limiting factor.

8:43:08And this sort of industrialization is absolutely happening.

8:43:11This is definitely something that is happening with software.

8:43:15But at the same time, there's also kind of a renaissance happening, right?

8:43:19Where people want a higher and higher quality software.

8:43:23and every marginal bit of creativity, utility, spirit, soul that you put into it is useful

8:43:32and economically valuable.

8:43:34And so simultaneously, you've got both of these things that are very hard to juggle

8:43:39and sort of hold in your head at the same time.

8:43:42But I think it is very true.

8:43:44And yeah, we're doing both of them.

8:43:47So oftentimes when you talk about AI capabilities, we talk about the jagged frontier.

8:43:52And so maybe you go back two years and you're asking AI to write this function for you,

8:44:00or a year and a half ago or a year ago, it's like, build this feature, and you're like,

8:44:04hey, build this to-do app, build a kind of simple to-do app, and then clone Slack for

8:44:09me now.

8:44:09And now it's like, okay, build Mario Kart from scratch, and then port it to the Wii

8:44:15or something.

8:44:16There's like the capability increases are the things that you see, right?

8:44:21Where, you know, whenever you look at the evals and benchmarks and stuff,

8:44:25you see this like just this jagged frontier of like capabilities.

8:44:30But I also like to talk about like the smooth interior where the way,

8:44:37whoops, the way the models, is there an animation playing here?

8:44:44The smooth interior is like, the idea is that the models are, as they get better, the animation

8:44:52here is like this jagged front and this circle in between.

8:44:55And so the circle sort of represents all of the things that the models are smart enough

8:45:02to do.

8:45:02And so like examples being like writing React code, right, or like using bash.

8:45:08and what you see is that like it's not jagged below the frontier, right? Like if it can write

8:45:15React, it can write Figma, it can write JSON, it can do sort of like all of these capabilities

8:45:20all together. And there's like a breadth of task that the models are really, really good at.

8:45:25And this is something that's also I think really like important and for me even more impactful

8:45:31because I don't really care that they can build Mario Kart from scratch anymore, right? What I

8:45:37really care about is like, hey, is the software that we're building, is it high quality, is

8:45:41it worthy of like a renaissance, you know what I mean?

8:45:47So yeah, like I think that like, you know, you can do things the way you want.

8:45:51So like if you're building mock-up, you can be like, hey, can I get an HTML, can I get

8:45:54a React, can I get a Figma file, can I computer use my computer and use After Effects, can

8:45:59you make a video?

8:46:00There are all these different ways of getting the like final result.

8:46:05And I've been really happy with this.

8:46:06I really was afraid that there would just be like one thing that the models love doing and we'd only be doing that

8:46:13and you know like

8:46:14Taken to the limit kind of like, you know, we talked about this a lot

8:46:18but like, you know, everything we've talked about so far about like, you know, how you build like these harnesses and software factories and

8:46:25these like this scaffolding for the models

8:46:28even things like, you know, for a while we were also like, hey, the model you'll like

8:46:34your job is to QA the model, you know, or review the code.

8:46:38And that's clearly not the case, right?

8:46:39I think as the models get smarter and smarter,

8:46:42it will become more of this, like, smooth interior, right?

8:46:46Where they're just doing things well, right?

8:46:49And, like, the perfect model you can imagine

8:46:51won't need to, like, really verify its work

8:46:54or scan for security vulnerabilities.

8:46:56We'll just, like, write the code and be like,

8:46:57hey, I'm done now.

8:46:59And you will check, and you'll be like, oh, you're right.

8:47:01Like, you know, according to the spec and the goals that we did, you did it correctly.

8:47:08And I think that's actually very exciting.

8:47:11One of the ways I like to sort of think about visualizing how much the model knows of this

8:47:17eval, I think Kaparthi posted it.

8:47:20But basically, you ask any, I think these are Claude models, you ask a model, you give

8:47:27it a longitude latitude and you say, hey, is this point earth or water?

8:47:32Right?

8:47:33Ground, sorry, land or water.

8:47:35And from that you plot a map of the earth.

8:47:39And yeah, this is Opus 4.6 is somewhere over there.

8:47:45Quite a good software engineering model.

8:47:47Kind of like a blurry view.

8:47:48And now you look at Opus 5.5 and it's almost perfect.

8:47:51It knows every piece of these coordinates.

8:47:57It knows the entire world, basically.

8:48:00And so this, I think, just gives you an idea besides the benchmarks about the jagged frontier.

8:48:07I feel like that's less and less important to us, and more important is just the general knowledge that the models have.

8:48:14And what's exciting, I think, about this is that we can use intelligence to understand

8:48:20and shape how we use intelligence, right?

8:48:22And I think that will be, like, the theme of the next year, right?

8:48:26Where this year, I think, was really about the industrialization of software and creating

8:48:30this, like, reliable way to make software.

8:48:34But what does that look like?

8:48:35So I have been building a game.

8:48:38It's this thing I've been posting on Twitter about

8:48:41It's a 2D isometric game

8:48:44It's kind of like a fighting game

8:48:46Inspired by things like Avatar and Smash Brothers

8:48:51And I have kind of like

8:48:53It's fun, but it's also quite frustrating to do

8:48:55I'm really trying to be a great vibe coder here

8:48:59I don't really know what each character does sometimes

8:49:02Because I will say, hey, I want this character to throw a rock

8:49:06And they'll be like, oh, yeah, great, but like there are all these like different things that can happen when you're throwing a rock

8:49:11Like this character can also summon a wall

8:49:14So does the rock go through the wall or not and like how what speed or like what what about size and charge and all these questions?

8:49:23and

8:49:24I I find that like the model just makes a bunch of choices for me and then I try it out

8:49:27I'm like wow I have no idea what this character actually does I

8:49:31Get distracted pretty easily. I don't feel in the zone very much

8:49:34You know, I sort of send off a prompt and I start doing something else and I come back

8:49:40And I honestly make less progress because of these things right and so

8:49:44I think this is frustrating and I think for a while I was like man

8:49:47I guess this is just like how you work with AI. This is just like what it's gonna be like, you know

8:49:51But I think reflecting I'm like man. I don't think that's right

8:49:54I think that like, you know, we have this like the AI's can work in the way that we

8:50:00want.

8:50:00And so, yeah, I don't think it's acceptable.

8:50:03I don't think that this is what leads to the renaissance.

8:50:05I don't think this is what leads to incredible software.

8:50:09And part of it, going back to what Dex said,

8:50:12is great work is just about this messy process of you

8:50:16don't know exactly what you want.

8:50:18It's more about the choices you made and what wasn't involved

8:50:23or what wasn't included versus what was included.

8:50:27And so, yeah, I think there's like,

8:50:32you kind of just have to be an expert.

8:50:34You have to just really know your stuff

8:50:36in order to make something great, right?

8:50:38In order to make something worthy of a renaissance, right?

8:50:41And I just like, when I look at something I'm vibe coding,

8:50:43I'm like, dude, I have no idea.

8:50:45Like, I just don't really get it, you know?

8:50:48And so what am I doing?

8:50:51How am I fixing this?

8:50:54One of the ways I'm doing it, and I'm still quite early on.

8:50:56I'm not saying that I've figured it all out.

8:50:58But I think one of the ways I'm doing it

8:51:00is that I have two parts of my code base.

8:51:01I've got this engine part of the code base.

8:51:04And then I have a folder.

8:51:05I think I call it spec, but I'm thinking I'm just

8:51:07calling it human or something.

8:51:09And that folder is the code that I read.

8:51:13And it's this code that's linted.

8:51:15And there's all these rules for Claude

8:51:18about what that code looks like.

8:51:20It's supposed to feel like English.

8:51:22It's kind of like a spec, and I'll show you what it looks like.

8:51:26But it's at the density where if I just read this code, I know what's happening, and I

8:51:32can edit it, I can tweak it, but more importantly, I just can have a bit of a ground truth of

8:51:40what my game looks like.

8:51:43So let's do a quick demo here.

8:51:47By demo, I guess I mean I'm just going to, whoops, this is my eTalk.

8:51:52Okay, here we go.

8:51:53Okay, so this is my game.

8:51:56I've got in here this folder game, and then I've got here this code.

8:51:59This is the agent code, right?

8:52:01This is the code where I'm like, dude, I don't know how cameras work or whatever.

8:52:06There's a bunch of code here that I don't understand.

8:52:08But then in this code, I have all my characters, and I have their abilities.

8:52:13And so I can go in here and I can say, like, okay, this is the rock move, right?

8:52:20And inside of this move, there's a bunch of ways to tune it.

8:52:23It's well commented.

8:52:25It uses things like meters, you know what I mean, instead of, like, x, like, 0.5 or whatever.

8:52:34It tries to, like, create a bunch of different abstractions along the way.

8:52:37And so I can see that one of the things that is useful is that there are three ways for

8:52:43this character to throw a rock.

8:52:45It can grab it from the ground, it can grab it from the wall or something.

8:52:50And I can see sort of the true logic of the character.

8:52:57I don't really know how the engine works or how this is implemented underneath, but I've

8:53:04essentially created almost a custom scripting language for

8:53:07my game.

8:53:09And so that means when I'm playing this game, I can

8:53:13tweak little things.

8:53:14I'm still working on it.

8:53:16So I can say I want the rock to be a lot bigger.

8:53:19So I can say 1.5, but I'm using an actual IDE.

8:53:24And so if I go here to my game, I can see that I have a

8:53:29rock, it can charge, it gets really big, and I throw it.

8:53:31right? But I'm like kind of, it's really interesting because I'm also starting to use

8:53:38cursor more and I'm using the tab model more, you know what I mean? Because now I can be like,

8:53:42oh, hey, what if I just want to say like, you know, if you summon a wall in the middle,

8:53:49like cue it up as an action, and then cursor will sort of like, you know, do the tab complete here.

8:53:57And this is kind of like, it's kind of like spec-driven development, you know, but the

8:54:02spec is this, like, this scripting language, basically.

8:54:07And, yeah, it's like, is this the final way I'm going to write this game?

8:54:11I'm not sure.

8:54:12It's like, you know, in some ways, when I need to do something complicated, I still

8:54:16need to ask Claude to do it, right?

8:54:18And I need to ask Claude to, like, make the primitives.

8:54:20But it's actually really easy for me to understand what's happening.

8:54:23And I feel like much more in control.

8:54:26And while Cloud is working, I can also sort of review it and work with it.

8:54:31And that's been really exciting.

8:54:32And so I think the takeaway for me has been that, like,

8:54:39the takeaway for me has been that, like,

8:54:42I now have to think about the way,

8:54:44the best way for me to deliver high-quality software, right?

8:54:48And I'm not as constrained and limited by the model's capabilities and what it likes

8:54:54to write code in or something.

8:54:56I'm just not thinking about, I need to think about how can I deliver great software.

8:55:01And so I think if we really internalize that, I think then the next year will be about a

8:55:07renaissance of software.

8:55:09And I think many people have talked today and this conference about how to be more ambitious.

8:55:15And I don't think any of this is quite new, but I just think there's many things to do,

8:55:19like new languages.

8:55:23Obviously, we want things like Rust that are very efficient, but we also want things to

8:55:27be potentially modular and hot reloadable.

8:55:31We want it to be potentially readable.

8:55:35New primitives, there are probably new types of databases, new types of servers.

8:55:40New operating system interactions.

8:55:42I've been sort of like vibe coding a bunch of personal software that sort of messes with

8:55:46my operating system.

8:55:48There are new interaction paradigms possible, I think.

8:55:51A lot of like old HCI research is now like very interesting to revisit.

8:55:56New aesthetics, I think the way that we like use and design software can change quite a

8:56:03lot.

8:56:04And yeah, I think that like there's so much to do here that I think, I don't think that

8:56:09And this is, every speaker, I think, has talked about this.

8:56:13And I don't have too much more to add.

8:56:17But I think that what I really want us to say is that what we need to do is to decide

8:56:23what the future of work looks like, right?

8:56:25Decide what our ideal experience is.

8:56:27Because the models are not this alien intelligence that's trying to force us into a specific

8:56:33way of working.

8:56:34They can kind of do everything, and they will.

8:56:37but our job is to bring about the renaissance.

8:56:40So, thank you guys.

8:56:42That's my talk.