Luca Rossi’s Weekend Reading List Examines AI, Product Judgment and Practitioner Writing

In a recent LinkedIn post, 🌀 Luca Rossi discusses three articles he recommends for weekend reading, touching on product decision-making, artificial intelligence and writing from professional experience. This article reports on Rossi’s post and the themes he highlights; it is not an article written by Rossi.

“Teams and agents now ship changes faster than leaders can understand them, so companies are losing the ability to judge and steer.”

Keeping pace with change—and deciding what belongs

Rossi’s first selection is Karri Saarinen’s “Our organizations are being DDoSed from the inside.” In summarizing the piece, Rossi draws attention to a management challenge: when teams and AI agents produce changes quickly, leaders may struggle to assess and direct the work. He also underscores a product principle from the article: a feature’s existing functionality is not, by itself, a reason to keep it.

As Rossi notes, “Just because something already works doesn’t mean it belongs in the product.” His endorsement points readers toward a distinction between shipping more and making considered choices about what a product should contain.

Engineers and the automation debate

Rossi’s second recommendation is Sean Goedecke’s “Software engineers don’t get to be Luddites about AI.” He presents Goedecke’s argument as a challenge to engineers who resist automation: engineers have long built tools that automate work, including work done by others.

“Engineers can’t really take the Luddites’ side, because in that story we are the mechanics, and automating other people’s work has always been our job.”

Rossi says the argument is “Hard to disagree with it!” That reaction signals his approval, while the post’s brief summary leaves the wider implications of the essay for readers to consider. The recommendation places AI not just in the context of new tools, but within a longstanding debate over who benefits when work is automated.

Writing with the authority of experience

The final selection, Jim Highsmith’s “Practitioner Voice,” addresses how professionals can write about their work. According to Rossi, Highsmith makes the case for authority grounded in having “owned the consequences” of one’s decisions, rather than relying on an academic or thought-leadership posture.

“Jim explores a way of writing where your authority comes from having owned the consequences of your work, instead of an academic or thought-leadership approach.”

Rossi also mentions that Highsmith describes writing with AI after Parkinson’s changed how he processes language. Rossi says he “loved it,” a personal endorsement that reflects the resonance of both the writing approach and Highsmith’s account of adapting his process.

A curated mix of perspectives

Together, the three recommendations span organizational judgment, the responsibilities engineers face in automation, and the credibility that comes from practice. Rossi’s post functions as a compact reading guide: it names the articles, gives readers his reasons for recommending them and invites them to spend part of the weekend with ideas he found compelling.