Something about the way the article sets up the conversation nags at me a bit - even though it concludes with statements and reasoning I generally agree quite well with. It sets out what it wants to argue clearly at the start:

> Everyone’s heard the line: “AI will write all the code; engineering as you know it is finished... The Bun acquisition blows a hole in that story.”

But what the article actually discusses and demonstrates by the end of the article is how the aspects of engineering beyond writing the code is where the value in human engineers is at this point. To me that doesn't seem like an example of a revealed preference in this case. If you take it back to the first part of the original quote above it's just a different wording for AI being the code writer and engineering being different.

I think what the article really means to drive against is the claim/conclusion "because AI can generate lots of code we don't need any type of engineer" but that's just not what the quote they chose to set out against is saying. Without changing that claim the acquisition of Bun is not really a counterexample, Bun had just already changed the way they do engineering so the AI wrote the code and the engineers did the other things.