> By definition, this is the worse AI coding will ever be

This may be true, but it's not necessarily true, and certainly not by definition. For example, formal verification by deductive methods has improved over the past four decades, and yet, by the most important measures, it's got worse. That's because the size of software it can be used to verify affordably has grown, but significantly slower than the growth in the size of the average software project. I.e. it can be used on a smaller portion of software than it could be used on decades ago.

Perhaps ironically, some people believe that the solution to this problem is AI coding agents that will write correctness proofs, but that is based on the hope that their fate will be different, i.e. that their improvement will outpace the growth in software size.

Indeed, it's possible that AI coding will make some kinds of software so cheap that their value will drop to close to zero, and the primary software creation activity by professionals will shift precisely to those programs that agents can't (yet) write.

I am really not convinced yet.

From all the data I have seen, the software industry is poised for a lot more growth in the foreseeable future.

I wonder if we are experiencing a local minima, on a longer upward trend.

Those that do find a job in a few days aren't online to write about it, so based on what is online we are lead to believe that it's all doom and gloom.

We also come out of a silly growth period where anyone who could sort a list and build a button in React would get hired.

My point is not that AI-coding is to be avoided at all costs, it's more about taming the fear-mongering of "you must use AI or will fall behind". I believe it's unfounded - use it as much or as little as you feel the need to.

P.S.: I do think that for juniors it's currently harder and require intentional efforts to land that first job - but that is the case in many other industries. It's not impossible, but it won't come on a silver plate like it did 5-7 years ago.