They do all those things you've mentioned more efficiently than most of us, but they fall woefully short as soon as novelty is required. Creativity is not in their repertoire. So if you're banging out the same type of thing over and over again, yes, they will make that work light and then scarce. But if you need to create something niche, something one-off, something new, they'll slip off the bleeding edge into the comfortable valley of the familiar at every step.
I choose to look at it as an opportunity to spend more time on the interesting problems, and work at a higher level. We used to worry about pointers and memory allocation. Now we will worry less and less about how the code is written and more about the result it built.
Take food for example. We don't eat food made by computers even though they're capable of making it from start to finish.
Sure we eat carrots probably assisted by machines, but we are not eating dishes like protein bars all day every day.
Our food is still better enjoyed when made by a chef.
Software engineering will be the same. No one will want to use software made by a machine all day every day. There are differences in the execution and implementation.
No one will want to read books entirely dreamed up by AI. Subtle parts of the books make us feel something only a human could have put right there right then.
No one will want to see movies entirely made by AI.
The list goes on.
But you might say "software is different". Yes but no, in the abundance of choice, when there will be a ton of choice for a type of software due to the productivity increase, choice will become more prominent and the human driven software will win.
Even today we pick the best terminal emulation software because we notice the difference between exquisitely crafted and bloated cruft.
You should look at other engineering disciplines. How many highway over passes have unique “chef quality” designs? Very few. Most engineering is commodity replications of existing designs. The exact same thing applies to software engineering. Most of us engineers are replicating designs that came earlier. LLMs are good at generating the rote designs that make up the bulk of software by volume. Who benefit from an artisanal REST interface? The best practices were codified over a decade ago.
> How many highway over passes have unique “chef quality” designs?
Have you ever built a highway overpass? That kind of engineering is complex and interdisciplinary. You need to carry out extensive traffic pattern analysis and soil composition testing to even know where it should go.
We're at a point where we've already automated all the simple stuff. If you want a website, you don't type out html tags. You use Squarespace or Wordpress or whatever. If you need a backend, you use Airtable. We already spend most of our time on the tricky stuff. Sure, it's nice that LLMs can smooth the rough edges of workflows that nobody's bothered to refine yet, but the software commodities of the world have already been commodified.
Just like cooking in the middle ages. As the kitchen, hygiene, etc. got better, so did the chefs and so did the food.
This is just a transition.
re-Rest API, you're right. But again, we use roombas to vacuum when the floor layout is friendly to them. Not all rooms can be vacuumed by roombas. Simple Rest api can be emitted one shot from an LLM and there is no room for interpretation. But ask a future LLM to make a new kind of social network and you'll end up with a mash up of the existing ones.
Same thing, you and I won't use a manual screwdriver when we have 100 screws to get in, and we own an electric drill.
That didn't reinvent screws nor the assembly of complex items.
I'm keeping positive in the sense that LLMs will enable us to do more, and to learn faster.
The sad part about vibe coding is you learn very little. And to live is to learn.
You'll notice people vibecoding all day become less and less attached to the product they work on. That's because they've given away the dopamine hits of the many "ha-ha" moments that come from programming. They'll lose interest. They won't learn anymore and die off (career wise).
So, businesses that put LLM first will slowly lose talent over time, and business that put developers first will thrive.
It's just a transition. A fast one that hits us like a wall, and it's confusing, but software for humans will be better made by humans.
I've been programming since the 80s. The level of complexity today is bat shit insane. I welcome the LLM help in managing 3 code bases of 3 languages spread across different architectures (my job) to keep sane!
There is a part of this that is true. But when you get the nuanced parts of every "replicated design" or need the tweaks or what the AI gave you is just wrong, that deteriorates quality.
For many tasks it is ok, for others it is just a NO.
For software maintenance and evolution I think it won't cut it.
The same way a Wordpress website can do a set of useful things. But when you need something specific, you just drop to programming.
You can have your e-commerce web. But you cannot ask it to give you a "pipeline excution as fast as possible for calculating and solving math for engineering task X". That needs SIMD, parallelization, understanding the niche use you need, etc. which probably most people do not do all the time and requires specific knowledge.
> So if you're banging out the same type of thing over and over again, yes, they will make that work light and then scarce.
The same thing over and over again should be a SaaS, some internal tool, or a plugin. Computers are good at doing the same thing over and over again and that's what we've been using them for
> But if you need to create something niche, something one-off, something new, they'll slip off the bleeding edge into the comfortable valley of the familiar at every step.
Even if the high level description of a task may be similar to another, there's always something different in the implementation. A sports car and a sedan have roughly the same components, but they're not engineered the same.
> We used to worry about pointers and memory allocation.
Some still do. It's not in every case you will have a system that handle allocations and a garbage collector. And even in those, you will see memory leaks.
> Now we will worry less and less about how the code is written and more about the result it built.
I think your image of LLMs is a bit outdated. Claude Code with well-configured agents will get entirely novel stuff done pretty well, and that’s only going to get better over time.
I wish that were true, but I don't think it's dying, I think it's metastasizing.
Ads will ingress deeper into what were trusted layers -- embedded in text and video in a seemingly organic way. GenAI tools make this possible -- to splice a 20 second mention of something into a stream, or rewrite a paragraph injecting a subtle product placement.
We will develop new mental antibodies for this, we always do. Silver lining of sorts -- while short-form video content is making people illiterate, perhaps literacy will become a calm refuge once again.
The biggest problem is platform scale, imo - platforms grow so big as to make the network effects confer an invulnerability to regulation or moderation, and then get exploited to squash competition, either through legal action, acquisition, suppression, or sometimes simple inertia. Ubiquitous reach and total control over the platform made it irresistible to bad faith operators, politicians, activists, and rent-seekers. AI has a good shot at completely fragmenting those technologies at a fundamental level.
We should be resisting any ad injection into ChatGPT, Claude, etc maintaining a firewall between what's acceptable in a paid product and what's not, and as long as open source Chinese models roughly keep parity, the big US labs can't pivot hard into exploiting users for ad revenues. Private hosting and bots are almost as good as ChatGPT with UI and UX, within a few percentage points as good in capabilities, and the pressure to go elsewhere is minimal. If they drive off a whole lot of independence minded users, they risk creating a community of people who'll create a very slick, workable alternative, while paying only a tenth or less what the frontier labs charge. As long as that dynamic cripples the efforts of big labs to enshittify, there's a good shot that the entire ecosystem fundamentally evolves to something better. I hope, anyway - it could just explode into a grotesque mess of user exploitation and yet more of the same.
I think at some point you'll be able to have good-enough AI on your phone to carry everywhere you go, and it'll do all the ad filtering and opsec and digital hygiene for you - everyone will have a high quality competent tech nerd in their pocket looking out for their best interests, and it won't just be a niche rebel nerd thing anymore.
>good-enough AI on your phone to carry everywhere you go
Eh, if Google/Apple allows you to put it on your phone, which is highly doubtful at this point. Google would outright directly ban that kind of competition in the name of security. Apple would just ban an AI like that in the name of security even though it doesn't actually compete with them.
> to splice a 20 second mention of something into a stream
I'm seeing the start of this already, AFAICT. There have been a couple of YouTube videos with embedded ads that YouTube flipped over to a YouTube ad at exactly the point the sponsor part started.
Google is almost certainly getting ready to use AI to splice out in stream ads and replace them with Google ads.
I don't think the comparison to programming languages holds, maybe very tenuously at best. Coding assistants evolve constantly, you can't even be talking about "Codex" without specifying the time range (ie, Codex 2025-10) because it's different from quarter to quarter. Same with CC.
I believe this is the main source of disagreement / disappointment when people read opinions / reviews, then proceed to have an experience very different from expected.
Ironically, this constant improvement/evolution erodes product loyalty -- personally, I'm a creature of habit and will stay with a tool past its expiry date; with coding assistants / sota llms, I cancel and switch subscriptions all the time.
Heya, author of the post here! I think you're right in everything you've said, but I want to note that the programming language comparison was meant to be metaphorical more than literal. Everything is changing so fast (as I mention in the post a few times), but I have seen some (far from all) people get locked into Claude Code or Codex in a way where they won't even consider alternatives the same way people they chose Ruby to start their career and now identify as Ruby developers.
My goal was to open people's minds just a little bit by saying exactly what you're getting at — everything is moving fast and we should be reassessing often. A meaningful difference is that you can start a codebase with Claude Code and then switch to Codex with almost no friction, while you can't just migrate a TypeScript app to Python in 15 minutes.
Honestly a rant like that is likely more about whatever is going on in his personal life / day at the moment, rather than about the state of the industry, or AI, etc.
I choose to look at it as an opportunity to spend more time on the interesting problems, and work at a higher level. We used to worry about pointers and memory allocation. Now we will worry less and less about how the code is written and more about the result it built.
reply