In a recent LinkedIn post, Marty Cagan discusses how AI-driven changes to product development could affect the product role. This article reports on Cagan’s post and the questions he says prompted a newly published article of his; it is not written by Cagan.
“One of the most common questions I get is ‘what do I think is the future of the product role given the AI-driven disruption to how we build products?’”
Why views of the future differ
Cagan says he is often asked not only what the future holds for product professionals, but also why opinions on that future vary so widely. In his post, he connects the disagreement to how people define the product role. That framing suggests that predictions may be addressing different versions of the job rather than reaching incompatible conclusions about a single, consistently understood role.
“And often the follow up: ‘how is it possible that there are such wildly divergent opinions of that future?’”
According to Cagan, the distinction is central to answering both questions. His post does not spell out the definitions or make a specific prediction about how AI will change each one. Instead, he directs readers to a separate article for the full argument.
Definitions shape the debate
Cagan says the answer depends on which of three definitions of the product role is under discussion. The post’s emphasis on those definitions offers a way to parse competing forecasts: before assessing how AI might change product work, readers need to know what work and responsibilities they mean by “the product role.”
“the answer depends entirely on which of the three very different definitions of the product role we are talking about”
That is the clearest claim in the post. Cagan presents the definitions as the basis for his analysis, but the LinkedIn text itself does not identify them. Readers seeking the details would need to consult the article he says he has published.
An invitation to read the full argument
Cagan encourages readers to engage with that longer piece rather than rely on a brief summary. As he writes:
“I hope people take the time to read the full argument”
His post therefore serves as both a preview of the article and a pointer to the framework he believes is necessary for discussing AI’s impact on product work. It raises the debate’s central question while directing readers to his article for the fuller explanation. The LinkedIn post provides no further detail about the three definitions or the article’s conclusions, so claims beyond that framing cannot be drawn from the post alone.
📝 About This Content
This article is based on insights shared by Marty Cagan on LinkedIn.
📅 Originally posted on November 6, 2026 | View original post on LinkedIn →