SCRIPT CHECK · 60 SECONDS
Five quick questions show how often it appears, how believable it feels, and what it makes you avoid. You’ll get one private next step.
This is not a diagnosis and there is no pass or fail. It measures the current frequency, credibility, and behavioral cost of “Junior devs with AI will leapfrog me”, including the private rule underneath it: If a junior can get to the same output with a tool, then my years of learning were just slow typing, and speed is the only skill that matters now.
QUIET
“Junior devs with AI will leapfrog me” appears, but it rarely gets the final say. Keep this line available for higher-pressure moments: “A junior with an AI tool can generate code fast. I can see which code is actually right. That's the difference.”
PRESENT
“Junior devs with AI will leapfrog me” wins some small decisions before you catch it. Your useful interruption is: “The AI didn't make the judgment part of my job easier—it made the bad code easier to spot.”
ACTIVE
“Junior devs with AI will leapfrog me” is shaping action often enough to deserve a deliberate counterexample. Start privately and concretely: Take one piece of AI-generated code from today. Read it. Without running it, write a one-sentence reason to keep or reject it. If you can't name the reason in one sentence, read another piece until you can.
DOMINANT
Right now, “Junior devs with AI will leapfrog me” is steering many of the moments you measured. That is a pattern reading, not a diagnosis or character verdict. Begin with one reversible receipt: Take one piece of AI-generated code from today. Read it. Without running it, write a one-sentence reason to keep or reject it. If you can't name the reason in one sentence, read another piece until you can.