Two years ago, generative AI still only completed individual lines of code through autocomplete. Today, AI agents independently take over entire components, suggest test cases, and design architecture building blocks. According to Google Cloud's 2025 DORA Report, around 90 percent of engineering teams now use generative AI in their daily development work (Harvey & DeBellis, 2025).
For teams in medical technology, automotive, or finance, this changes day-to-day work considerably, because speed alone isn't what matters here. Every line of code must remain traceable, verified, and fit for approval before it can flow into a product. This is exactly where the question that occupies many engineering teams right now comes in: Which tasks can reasonably be delegated to AI, and where does human judgment remain indispensable?
The research paints a mixed picture. Security vendor Veracode found in 2025 that generative AI produced insecure code suggestions in 45 percent of cases, particularly for security-relevant patterns such as cross-site scripting (Wessling, 2025). Analytics firm GitClear examined 211 million changed lines of code and found that duplicated, barely reusable code has increased significantly since 2021, while genuine refactoring has declined (Harding, 2025).
An even more revealing finding comes from the research organization METR: in the first randomized trial on AI productivity, experienced developers working on complex, established codebases were 19 percent slower with AI assistance, even though they subjectively felt faster (Becker et al., 2025). This describes precisely the starting point for many legacy systems in safety-critical software: large, historically grown, and densely documented for regulatory purposes.
In regulated industries, this changes the calculation. Standards such as IEC 62304 (International Electrotechnical Commission 62304) in medical technology or ISO 26262 in automotive require seamless traceability across the entire software lifecycle, regardless of who or what wrote the code. The upcoming second edition of IEC 62304 will explicitly address AI process planning for the first time (NSF, 2026).
Generative AI therefore shifts the bottleneck from writing code to reviewing and proving it. At the same time, who performs that review is changing too: classic developer roles are turning into reviewers and orchestrators, while newcomers in particular need to build new skills for working with AI output so they don't fall behind. Anyone modernizing legacy software, for example in medical imaging, gains real speed from AI mainly when human expertise continues to own architecture, risk assessment, and verification. This applies especially to systems that have been running in the field for many years, with documentation that has grown over decades.
The consensus among experts is clear: it isn't full automation but the deliberate interplay of human expertise and AI-driven scaling that delivers real progress in safety-critical systems. This is already visible in practice: at individual software teams of major MedTech manufacturers, industry reports indicate that a substantial share of new code is now created with the help of generative AI, while the technical review remains entirely in the hands of engineers.
This exact interplay is at the center of the next sepp.med Afterwork Exchange. Tom Jachmann, who is responsible for the software platform of modern computed tomography (CT) systems at Siemens Healthineers, uses concrete practical examples from legacy modernization to show where AI is already boosting speed and quality today, and where human responsibility remains irreplaceable.
Join the live discussion on which roles are changing in your engineering team right now, and secure your spot at the sepp.med Afterwork Exchange.
We invite you to the next edition of the Afterwork Exchange. On September 24, 2026, decision-makers and experts will come together to discuss current trends in AI and software development. Join us for the discussion!
No. Studies such as the METR report show that AI actually slows things down on complex, safety-critical codebases without human review. Architecture and verification remain a human responsibility.
The upcoming second edition of the standard explicitly addresses AI process planning for the first time. The obligation to provide evidence, traceability, and verification remains unchanged, regardless of who wrote the code.
For engineering and regulatory affairs professionals from MedTech, automotive, finance, and other safety-critical industries who want to know how roles are changing on their teams.
Yes, simply register via the event page. You'll also find all the details on location, time, and format there.
Firstname:
Lastname:
E-Mail Address:
Phone:
Subject:
Your message:
Yes, I consent to my personal data being collected and stored electronically. My data will only be used for the purpose of responding to my inquiry. I have taken note of the privacy policy.
You are currently viewing a placeholder content from OpenStreetMap. To access the actual content, click the button below. Please note that doing so will share data with third-party providers.
You need to load content from hCaptcha to submit the form. Please note that doing so will share data with third-party providers.
You are currently viewing a placeholder content from Hubspot Embedded Content. To access the actual content, click the button below. Please note that doing so will share data with third-party providers.
You are currently viewing a placeholder content from HubSpot. To access the actual content, click the button below. Please note that doing so will share data with third-party providers.
You are currently viewing a placeholder content from Hubspot Meetings. To access the actual content, click the button below. Please note that doing so will share data with third-party providers.
You are currently viewing a placeholder content from Google Maps. To access the actual content, click the button below. Please note that doing so will share data with third-party providers.