Yeah, I have a really hard time buying the "AI code isn't maintainable long term" because if you look at the quality increase from January of this year to now, it's insane. We've gone from Opus 4.6 and GPT 5.4 to Fable 5.1 and GPT 6 in less than a year, where we went from 0 mathematics problems being solved by AI to a Millennium prize problem being solved in a few days of compute. Obviously not the same as coding skills, but it shows the growth in raw reasoning and abstraction.

I understand why people are resistant to this from an emotional perspective, but I really don't see a plateau in sight. RLVR is clearly still cooking and narrow RSI seems to be on the horizon.

But I'm also a realist. If the technology exists, it will be used to the maximum economical extent.

We've been able to make watches with machines for 50 years. Handmade Watchmakers, and their producuts are more valuable and in demand than any guy running a conveyer belt. They still make 20x more if not 50x. People look up to them.

You can make a choice not to become a button pusher and still do things by hand. You dont have to fry your brain. You're falling for a massive trap to strip you of your value.

> I've accepted that in 5-10 years, the vast majority of human devs. and engineers will not touch a single line of code.

Why would companies employ human engineers then? What is the value addition to justify high human salaries. If AI is going to get so good (and I am not saying it won’t happen, that’s a separate debate), why can’t AI figure out the prompts itself?

I'm in the same boat. When I started thinking about LLM development as multi-year iterative training adjustments, it felt like the majority of shortcomings can be addressed.