Agentic Code Generation with OpenAI Codex CLI — A Knight’s Tour Walkthrough

Hands-On with OpenAI Codex CLI

Agentic Code Generation with OpenAI Codex CLI

A step-by-step walkthrough of using OpenAI’s agentic coding tool to scaffold, solve, test, and visualise the classic Knight’s Tour chess problem — entirely through natural language prompts.

This post assumes you have Codex CLI installed and authenticated. We’ll be working in three phases, each driven by a carefully crafted Codex prompt.

♞ What is the Knight’s Tour Problem?

The Knight’s Tour is a classic puzzle from combinatorics and graph theory: given an n×n chessboard and a knight placed on any starting square, can the knight visit every square on the board exactly once using only valid knight moves? A knight moves in an L-shape — two squares in one direction and one square perpendicular, giving it up to eight possible moves from any position.

The problem has been studied for over a thousand years. Arab mathematicians documented it as early as the 9th century, and Leonhard Euler conducted a systematic mathematical analysis in 1759. There are two variants: an open tour, where the starting and ending squares differ, and a closed (re-entrant) tour, where the knight can return to its starting square in one move. On the standard 8×8 board, there are over 26 trillion distinct open tours.

From an algorithmic standpoint, the Knight’s Tour is a special case of the Hamiltonian path problem on a graph, where each square is a node and edges connect squares reachable by a knight move. Finding a Hamiltonian path is NP-complete in general, but the regular structure of the chessboard makes efficient heuristics possible.

The most well-known heuristic is Warnsdorff’s rule (H.C. von Warnsdorff, 1823): at each step, move to the unvisited square that has the fewest onward moves. This greedy approach runs in linear time relative to the number of squares and finds a tour almost always on boards of size 5×5 and above — which is exactly what we’ll ask Codex to implement.

🗺️ What We’re Building

By the end of this walkthrough, we’ll have a fully working Python application with three layers built up incrementally through Codex prompts:

PhaseWhat Codex BuildsOutput
Phase 1Core solver using Warnsdorff’s heuristicCLI app, ASCII board output
Phase 2Pytest test suite and colourised terminal outputANSI colour board, passing tests
Phase 3Flask web app with animated HTML canvasInteractive browser visualisation

⚙️ Prerequisites

Before starting, make sure you have:

  • Codex CLI installed (brew install --cask codex or npm i -g @openai/codex)
  • Authenticated with a ChatGPT Plus/Pro account or an OpenAI API key
  • Python 3.10+ available in your shell
  • Git installed on your machine (see Project Setup below if you haven’t configured it yet)

📁 Project Setup

We’ll use Git throughout this guide as a safety net — you can git diff to review what Codex changed, or revert entirely if a phase goes wrong. If this is your first time using Git on this machine, configure your identity first:

git config --global user.name  "Your Name"
git config --global user.email "[email protected]"

This only needs to be done once. To verify your settings at any time:

git config --global --list

Now create the project directory and initialise the repo:

mkdir knights-tour && cd knights-tour
git init
git commit --allow-empty -m "initial commit"

With the repo ready, launch Codex from inside the project directory:

codex

Once the TUI loads, your very first prompt should be to generate an AGENTS.md file. This acts as a standing project-level system prompt — Codex reads it automatically at the start of every future session, so you don’t have to repeat your conventions each time.

📝 Codex Prompt — Generate AGENTS.md

“Create an AGENTS.md file in the project root for a Python CLI and web application project. Include the following standing instructions: use Python 3.10+ with type hints throughout; place all tests in a /tests directory using pytest; never use global mutable state; prefer functions over classes unless OOP is genuinely the better fit; handle all CLI arguments with argparse; use Flask for any web routes; keep each module focused on a single responsibility. Format it as a markdown file with a brief intro line followed by a bullet list.”

Codex will create the file and show you the diff to review. Accept it, then commit before moving to Phase 1. Every subsequent Codex session in this directory will pick up these rules automatically.

💡 Why prompt Codex to write AGENTS.md instead of writing it yourself? Two reasons. First, you describe your intent conversationally rather than worrying about format. Second, it sets the right mental model for the rest of the guide — Codex writes the files, you review the diffs.

You can also update it at any time: “Add a rule that all functions must have docstrings” or “Update AGENTS.md to say we’re now using FastAPI instead of Flask” — Codex will edit the file in place and show you the diff.

Phase 1 — Core Solver

Still in the same Codex session, enter the Phase 1 prompt. Codex already has the project context from AGENTS.md, so you can get straight to the point:

📝 Codex Prompt — Phase 1

“Create a Python CLI app that solves the Knight’s Tour problem. Use Warnsdorff’s heuristic: at each step, move to the unvisited square with the fewest onward moves. The board size and starting position (row, col) should be configurable via argparse with defaults of n=8, row=0, col=0. The solver should return None if no tour is found. Display the completed board as a grid of move numbers, right-aligned. Save the solver logic in knight_tour.py and the entry point in main.py. Include a requirements.txt (even if empty for now) and a .gitignore for Python.”

Codex will show you its plan before making any changes. In Auto mode, you’ll see it create each file with a diff preview. Here’s a simplified version of what the generated knight_tour.py looks like:

MOVES = [(2,1),(2,-1),(-2,1),(-2,-1),(1,2),(1,-2),(-1,2),(-1,-2)]

def get_neighbours(x, y, n, visited):
    return [(x+dx, y+dy) for dx,dy in MOVES
            if 0 <= x+dx < n and 0 <= y+dy < n
            and not visited[x+dx][y+dy]]

def solve(n, start_x, start_y):
    visited = [[False]*n for _ in range(n)]
    board   = [[-1]*n   for _ in range(n)]
    x, y = start_x, start_y
    visited[x][y] = True
    board[x][y]   = 0
    for move in range(1, n*n):
        neighbours = get_neighbours(x, y, n, visited)
        if not neighbours:
            return None
        x, y = min(neighbours,
                   key=lambda p: len(get_neighbours(p[0],p[1],n,visited)))
        visited[x][y] = True
        board[x][y]   = move
    return board

Run it in a separate terminal to verify:

python3 main.py --size 8 --row 0 --col 0

You should see a numbered 8×8 grid where each number represents the move order of the knight. Commit the result before moving to Phase 2.

💡 Approval Flow: In Codex’s default Auto mode, you’ll see a diff for each file before it’s written. Press A to accept or R to reject. If Codex proposes something you don’t want, reject it and follow up with a corrective prompt — it retains full context.

Phase 2 — Tests & Colourised Output

In the same Codex session, enter the next prompt. You don’t need to re-explain the project — Codex still has full context from Phase 1.

📝 Codex Prompt — Phase 2

“Now add two things. First, create a test suite in tests/test_knight_tour.py using pytest. Test that: (1) solve() returns a valid tour where every integer from 0 to n²−1 appears exactly once, (2) consecutive moves are a valid knight’s move apart, (3) solve() returns None for n=2 which has no solution. Second, add a new function print_coloured_board() in knight_tour.py that uses ANSI escape codes to colour the board — alternate between a light and dark background for a chess-style pattern, with white text for the move numbers. Call it from main.py instead of format_board() when –colour flag is passed.”

Codex will generate the test file and extend knight_tour.py with the colour function. Key tests:

import pytest
from knight_tour import solve

def is_valid_knight_move(x1, y1, x2, y2):
    dx, dy = abs(x2-x1), abs(y2-y1)
    return (dx, dy) in {(1,2),(2,1)}

@pytest.mark.parametrize("n,r,c", [(5,0,0),(6,1,1),(8,0,0),(8,3,4)])
def test_valid_tour(n, r, c):
    board = solve(n, r, c)
    assert board is not None
    flat = sorted(v for row in board for v in row)
    assert flat == list(range(n*n))

def test_no_solution_n2():
    assert solve(2, 0, 0) is None

Install pytest, then run the tests in a separate terminal:

pip3 install pytest
pytest tests/ -v

And try the colour flag:

python3 main.py --size 8 --colour

Phase 3 — Flask Web App with Animated Visualisation

Now we go beyond the terminal. In the same session (or a fresh one — Codex resumes from codex resume --last), enter the Phase 3 prompt:

📝 Codex Prompt — Phase 3

“Add a Flask web app in app.py. It needs two routes: GET / serves a single-page HTML form where users can input board size (5–10) and starting row/col. POST /solve accepts these inputs, runs the solver, and returns the board as JSON. The HTML page should also contain a JavaScript canvas visualisation that animates the knight’s path one move at a time when the solution arrives — draw the board as a grid, colour visited squares progressively, and draw a ♞ symbol on the current square. Add flask to requirements.txt.”

Codex generates app.py and embeds the full HTML/JS using Flask’s render_template_string. The key backend endpoint:

from flask import Flask, request, jsonify, render_template_string
from knight_tour import solve
app = Flask(__name__)

@app.route("/solve", methods=["POST"])
def solve_tour():
    data = request.get_json()
    n, row, col = int(data.get("size",8)), int(data.get("row",0)), int(data.get("col",0))
    if not (5 <= n <= 10):
        return jsonify({"error": "Board size must be between 5 and 10"}), 400
    board = solve(n, row, col)
    if board is None:
        return jsonify({"error": "No solution found"}), 422
    return jsonify({"board": board, "n": n})

Install Flask and run:

pip3 install flask
python3 app.py

Visit http://localhost:5000, choose your board size and starting square, hit Solve, and watch the knight’s path animate across the canvas.

🔄 Iterating Further — More Prompt Ideas

Once your three-phase app is working, you can keep iterating in the same session. Here are some prompts to take it further:

GoalFollow-up Prompt
Speed comparison“Add a backtracking solver as an alternative to Warnsdorff’s. Add a –solver flag to switch between them, and time both with Python’s timeit.”
Export result“Add a –export flag to main.py that saves the board as a CSV and also renders it as a PNG using matplotlib, with the knight path drawn as a line.”
User clicks board“Update the web app so users click a cell on the canvas to set the starting position instead of using the form fields.”
Code review“Review the current codebase for edge cases, type annotation completeness, and any issues with the input validation in app.py.”

✅ Effective Prompting Tips for Codex

A few patterns that made a noticeable difference in the quality of output across this walkthrough:

TipWhy It Helps
Name your files explicitlyCodex won’t guess at naming conventions. Saying “save to knight_tour.py” prevents it from choosing arbitrary filenames.
Specify what None/failure meansWithout “return None if no tour is found,” Codex might raise an exception instead — a valid choice but harder to test.
Bundle related changes in one promptPhase 2 added tests and colour output together. Codex handles multi-file tasks well when given in a single cohesive prompt.
Keep sessions alive for follow-upsDon’t exit and re-enter. Staying in the same session means Codex retains full context — you can make corrections without re-explaining the project.
Use AGENTS.md for standing rulesAnything you’d say in every prompt belongs in AGENTS.md. It keeps prompts shorter and ensures consistent style across sessions.

📁 Final Project Structure

knights-tour/
├── AGENTS.md
├── .gitignore
├── requirements.txt      ← flask
├── knight_tour.py        ← solver + display logic
├── main.py               ← CLI entry point
├── app.py                ← Flask web app
└── tests/
    └── test_knight_tour.py

What’s worth noticing in this walkthrough is the workflow rhythm: each Codex prompt builds on the last without re-explaining context, and the AGENTS.md file silently enforces project conventions so you don’t have to. The three phases took roughly 15 minutes end-to-end, most of which was reviewing diffs and running tests rather than writing code.

The Knight’s Tour is just the illustration. The same prompt-iterate-commit loop applies to any project — and the more you invest in a good AGENTS.md upfront, the more useful each Codex session becomes.

Word Embeddings Explained: The Math Behind AI, LLMs, and Chatbots

NLP Explainer · AI Series 2026

How Machines Understand Language

A guide to word embeddings — where meaning becomes mathematics, and vectors do the talking.

When a search engine retrieves a document about automobiles in response to a query about cars, it is not matching text character by character. Somewhere beneath the interface, the system understands that these two words are semantically related. The mechanism behind that understanding is the word embedding — and once you see the geometry, you cannot unsee it.

This article walks through the key mathematical operations that make embeddings work: distance, similarity, arithmetic, scaling, and the dot product. Each concept is illustrated with concrete numerical vectors so the math is visible, not just described. Real embeddings typically use hundreds of dimensions; the 3- and 4-dimensional examples here preserve all the structure while staying readable on a page.

1  ·  What is a Word Embedding?

A word embedding is a representation of a word as a vector — an ordered list of numbers — in a high-dimensional space. A typical embedding model might use 300 dimensions, so the word cat becomes a point with 300 coordinates. That sounds abstract, but the key insight is this: the position of that point encodes meaning.

This is what researchers call a semantic space. Words with related meanings end up positioned close to each other. King and Queen live near each other. Paris and London live near each other. Bicycle and democracy live far apart. The model learns these positions not from human-curated rules, but from the statistical patterns of how words appear together in enormous text corpora.

EXAMPLE: 4-DIMENSIONAL VECTORS (simplified from real 300-dim embeddings)
vec(“King”)  = [ 0.9, 0.7, 0.4,  +0.6 ]
vec(“Queen”)  = [ 0.9, 0.7, 0.4,  -0.6 ]
vec(“Man”)  = [ 0.5, 0.3, 0.1,  +0.8 ]
vec(“Woman”) = [ 0.5, 0.3, 0.1,  -0.8 ]

The first three dimensions encode royalty, authority, and age.
The fourth dimension encodes gender: positive = masculine, negative = feminine.

Think of it as a map where the geography is meaning. Every word is a pin, and the distances between pins reflect semantic relationships rather than physical ones.

2  ·  The Geometry of Meaning: Distance and Similarity

Once words are points in space, we need a way to measure how close they are. Two approaches dominate: Euclidean distance and cosine similarity. For the examples below, we use a 3-dimensional temperature embedding:

TEMPERATURE VECTORS (3 dimensions)
vec(“Hot”) = [  1.0,  0.8,  0.6 ]
vec(“Warm”) = [  0.8,  0.6,  0.4 ]
vec(“Cold”) = [ -0.6,  0.4, -0.8 ]

2.1   Euclidean (Cartesian) Distance

The most intuitive measure — the straight-line gap between the tips of two arrows drawn from the origin. For vectors a and b in n dimensions:

d(a, b)  =  √ Σi ( aibi )2
WORKED EXAMPLE: EUCLIDEAN DISTANCE
// Hot vs Warm (similar words)
d(Hot, Warm) = √[ (1.0-0.8)2 + (0.8-0.6)2 + (0.6-0.4)2 ]
              = √[ 0.04 + 0.04 + 0.04 ] = √0.12  &approx;  0.346  ← small: close together

// Hot vs Cold (opposite words)
d(Hot, Cold) = √[ (1.0-(-0.6))2 + (0.8-0.4)2 + (0.6-(-0.8))2 ]
              = √[ 2.56 + 0.16 + 1.96 ] = √4.68  &approx;  2.163  ← large: far apart

2.2   Cosine Similarity — The Industry Standard

In practice, NLP systems almost universally prefer cosine similarity over Euclidean distance. It ignores the length of vectors entirely and focuses only on the angle between them — two vectors pointing the same direction score 1.0 regardless of their magnitude.

COSINE SIMILARITY
cos(θ)  = a  ·  b
a‖  ×  ‖b
Range: −1  (opposite)  →  0  (orthogonal)  →  +1  (identical direction)
WORKED EXAMPLE: COSINE SIMILARITY
// First compute magnitudes
‖Hot‖ = √(1.02 + 0.82 + 0.62) = √2.00 &approx; 1.414
‖Warm‖ = √(0.82 + 0.62 + 0.42) = √1.16 &approx; 1.077
‖Cold‖ = √(0.62 + 0.42 + 0.82) = √1.16 &approx; 1.077

// Hot vs Warm (small angle)
dot(Hot, Warm) = (1.0)(0.8) + (0.8)(0.6) + (0.6)(0.4) = 0.80 + 0.48 + 0.24 = 1.52
cos(Hot, Warm) = 1.52 / (1.414 × 1.077) = 1.52 / 1.523 &approx; +0.998

// Hot vs Cold (large angle)
dot(Hot, Cold) = (1.0)(-0.6) + (0.8)(0.4) + (0.6)(-0.8) = -0.60 + 0.32 – 0.48 = -0.76
cos(Hot, Cold) = -0.76 / (1.414 × 1.077) = -0.76 / 1.523 &approx; -0.499
Word Pair Euclidean d cos(θ) Interpretation
Hot vs Warm 0.346 +0.998 Nearly identical direction — closely related
Hot vs Cold 2.163 −0.499 Opposite directions — antonyms
3  ·  Vector Arithmetic: Meaning You Can Add and Subtract

Because words are vectors, you can perform arithmetic on them — and the results are semantically meaningful. The most famous example uses the 4-dimensional royalty vectors introduced in Section 1:

THE CLASSIC ANALOGY
vec(“King”) − vec(“Man”) + vec(“Woman”)  &approx;  vec(“Queen”)
WORKED EXAMPLE: KING – MAN + WOMAN
King  = [ 0.9,  0.7,  0.4,  +0.6 ]
Man  = [ 0.5,  0.3,  0.1,  +0.8 ]
Woman  = [ 0.5,  0.3,  0.1,  -0.8 ]

// Subtract component by component, then add
King – Man = [ 0.9-0.5,  0.7-0.3,  0.4-0.1,  0.6-0.8 ] = [  0.4,   0.4,   0.3,  -0.2 ]
+ Woman   = [ 0.4+0.5,  0.4+0.3,  0.3+0.1,  -0.2+(-0.8) ] = [  0.9,   0.7,   0.4,  -1.0 ]

// Find nearest word by Euclidean distance
result = [ 0.9, 0.7, 0.4, -1.0 ]

d(result, Queen) = √[ 0 + 0 + 0 + (-1.0-(-0.6))2 ] = √0.16 &approx; 0.400 ← nearest
d(result, Woman) &approx; 0.671    d(result, King) = 1.600    d(result, Man) &approx; 1.910

cos(result, Queen) &approx; 0.974   ← highest cosine similarity also points to Queen

What happened geometrically? Subtracting Man from King stripped out the gender dimension (+0.8 gone), leaving the royalty structure intact. Adding Woman injected the feminine gender value (-0.8). The result sits 0.4 units from Queen — the nearest word in this vocabulary.

4  ·  Scalar Multiplication and Division: Changing Intensity

Multiplying or dividing a vector by a scalar (a plain number) changes its magnitude without changing its direction. This maps neatly onto the idea of degree in language — Tiny, Large, and Gigantic all point in roughly the same semantic direction, but at different intensities.

SIZE VECTORS (3 dimensions)
vec(“Tiny”) = [ 0.10, 0.20, 0.10 ]
vec(“Large”) = [ 0.50, 0.70, 0.40 ]
vec(“Gigantic”) = [ 1.10, 1.50, 0.90 ]
WORKED EXAMPLE: SCALING ALONG THE SIZE AXIS
// Multiplying Large by 2 moves it toward Gigantic
Large × 2 = [ 0.5×2,  0.7×2,  0.4×2 ] = [ 1.00,  1.40,  0.80 ]
vec(“Gigantic”) = [ 1.10,  1.50,  0.90 ]    d(Large × 2, Gigantic) &approx; 0.173 ← very close

// Multiplying Large by 0.2 moves it toward Tiny
Large × 0.2 = [ 0.10,  0.14,  0.08 ]
vec(“Tiny”) = [ 0.10,  0.20,  0.10 ]    d(Large × 0.2, Tiny) &approx; 0.063 ← very close

Division works the same way along an intensity axis. Halving a “Loud” vector lands near “Soft”:

WORKED EXAMPLE: DIVIDING ALONG THE LOUDNESS AXIS
vec(“Loud”) = [ 0.90, 1.20, 0.60 ]    vec(“Soft”) = [ 0.30, 0.40, 0.20 ]
Loud ÷ 2 = [ 0.45,  0.60,  0.30 ]
d(Loud ÷ 2, Soft) &approx; 0.269  ← direction unchanged, intensity halved
Key intuition: Scalar operations change how much of something a vector represents, without changing what kind of thing it represents. Direction is preserved; intensity is tuned.
5  ·  The Dot Product: Agreement and Magnitude Together

The dot product of two vectors is computed by multiplying their corresponding components and summing the results:

DOT PRODUCT
a  ·  b  =  Σi  ( ai × bi )  =  a1b1  +  a2b2  + … +  anbn

The dot product is cosine similarity before normalising away the vector lengths. It captures two things simultaneously: the direction of agreement and the combined magnitude. Cosine similarity captures only the first.

We reuse the loudness vectors from Section 4 — Very Loud is “Loud” and A Little Loud is “Soft”. They point in exactly the same direction but have very different lengths:

WORKED EXAMPLE: VERY LOUD vs A LITTLE LOUD
vec(“A Little Loud”) = [ 0.30, 0.40, 0.20 ]  |magnitude| = 0.539
vec(“Very Loud”) = [ 0.90, 1.20, 0.60 ]  |magnitude| = 1.616

// Cosine similarity: measures direction only
dot(AL, VL) = (0.3)(0.9) + (0.4)(1.2) + (0.2)(0.6) = 0.27 + 0.48 + 0.12 = 0.87
cos(AL, VL) = 0.87 / (0.539 × 1.616) = 0.87 / 0.871 &approx; 1.000

// Dot product: measures direction AND magnitude
AL · AL = (0.3)2 + (0.4)2 + (0.2)2 = 0.09 + 0.16 + 0.04 = 0.29
VL · VL = (0.9)2 + (1.2)2 + (0.6)2 = 0.81 + 1.44 + 0.36 = 2.61
Comparison Magnitude cos(θ) v · v
A Little Loud 0.539 1.000 (same dir.) 0.29
Very Loud 1.616 1.000 (same dir.) 2.61

Both words are perfectly collinear — cosine similarity is 1.0 in both cases. But the dot products are 0.29 vs 2.61, a 9× difference. This is why recommendation systems and attention mechanisms in transformer models often prefer raw dot products: when you want to know not just whether a document is relevant but also how prominently it discusses a topic, the dot product gives you both dimensions at once.

6  ·  Practical Applications

Search engines convert your query into a vector and retrieve documents whose vectors are nearest to it in the semantic space — using cosine similarity to rank by relevance regardless of exact word match. When you search for car insurance and the engine returns results about vehicle coverage, it is doing nearest-neighbour lookup in embedding space, exactly as the Hot/Warm/Cold example in Section 2 demonstrates.

Recommendation systems represent your interests as a vector computed from your history, then find products whose vectors are closest to yours. The dot product is particularly useful here: a highly-relevant item with a large magnitude — analogous to Very Loud — will score higher than a mildly-relevant item even if they point in the same direction.

Large language models use the scaled dot product directly inside the attention mechanism. For every token, a query vector and a set of key vectors are compared via dot product to determine which parts of the context deserve attention — a direct descendant of the arithmetic explored in Section 5.

Quick Reference: Embedding Operations

Operation Formula Section 2-5 Result
Euclidean Distance √( Σ (aibi)2 ) d(Hot,Warm) = 0.346   d(Hot,Cold) = 2.163
Cosine Similarity (a·b) / (‖a‖×‖b‖) cos(Hot,Warm) = +0.998   cos(Hot,Cold) = -0.499
Vector Arithmetic a ± b King-Man+Woman → nearest Queen (d = 0.400)
Scalar Multiplication λ · a Large × 2 → near Gigantic   Loud ÷ 2 → near Soft
Dot Product a·b = Σ aibi cos = 1.00 for both; dot 0.29 (soft) vs 2.61 (loud)

✦ This article was generated with the assistance of Claude by Anthropic

Dario Amodei — The Adolescence of Technology

https://www.darioamodei.com/essay/the-adolescence-of-technology

In “The Adolescence of Technology,” Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei argues that humanity is entering a high-stakes “technological puberty” with the imminent arrival of expert-level AI. He outlines a pragmatic strategy to counter existential risks—ranging from biological threats to digital authoritarianism—stressing that through surgical regulation and rigorous safety engineering, we can navigate this dangerous transition toward a future of immense global benefit.

Does Challenging AI Make It Smarter?

A recent Medium article claims that adding challenge phrases like “I bet you can’t solve this” to AI prompts improves output quality by 45%, based on research by Li et al. (2023).

Quick Test Results

Testing these techniques on academic tasks—SQL queries, code debugging, and research synthesis—showed mixed but interesting results:

What worked: Challenge framing produced more thorough, systematic responses for complex multi-step problems. Confidence scoring (asking AI to rate certainty and re-evaluate if below 0.9) caught overconfident answers.

What didn’t: Simple factual queries showed no improvement.

The Why

High-stakes language doesn’t trigger AI emotions—it cues pattern-matching against higher-quality training examples where stakes were high.

Bottom Line

Worth trying for complex tasks, but expect higher token usage. Results are task-dependent, not universal.


Source: Li et al. (2023), arXiv:2307.11760

“`

Source: Li et al. (2023), arXiv:2307.11760

AI is displacing software engineers, but those in Singapore have the chance to fare better

https://www.straitstimes.com/business/ai-is-displacing-software-engineers-but-those-in-singapore-have-the-chance-to-fare-better?sfnsn=mo

The CEO Magazine: David Ellis: Why AI makes new graduates more valuable than ever

https://amp.theceomagazine.com/business/innovation-technology/david-ellis/

Ellis sees a different future. Rather than eliminating graduate positions, IBM Consulting is actively increasing them.

“So, for example, we are increasing, not decreasing, the number of graduate hires that we’re making here in Australia,” he says.

Investing in the future
The reasoning is both strategic and generational. Today’s graduates enter the workforce with a crucial advantage – they’ve been using AI longer than most experienced workers.

“We have people entering the workforce that have perhaps been using AI longer than many others. Maybe they’ve been using it through their studies. Maybe they’ve just got a deeper affinity to it,” Ellis explains.

When properly equipped and trained, these AI-native workers can be a huge asset to organizations.

“We can skill them, we can equip them, we can give them the confidence to be much more effective than you or I might have been at the beginning of our careers,” he says.