I don't see anything dismissive here. It is a realistic assessment: if the choice is between code generated by AI or code generated by a human, and the AI is better in an objective manner, then why should a company employ a human? I refer here solely to the code result; naturally humans may do things AI can not do yet, but if the question is solely about code quality and AIs are better here, then why would that comment be dismissive rather than realistic?

> And the only people who will ever be in that position are the ones who take the time and effort, out of sheer curiosity, to learn how things work.

People learn something new all the time, AI does not learn anything, it just simulates and hallucinates. But the core question is not addressed with that. What would you do if you have to compete against AI, and AI is better? We already see these with the new generation of humanoid robots from China. Those things make Boston Dynamics robots look like tinker-toys in comparison - already as-is. Give it ten more years and we finally reached AI skynet for real.