> In Oct 2026, how many of us don't know this already?

The comments to this article suggest that it's still disputed.

Personally, I think it's a bit of a silly phrase, because it implies an absolute, and all anyone needs to do to disprove it is to show that coding was not solved for problem X. That's still the case -- it's just that the set of X is rapidly shrinking.

I think it's more indicative to say how much you trust LLM code. A little over a year ago, I scrutinised every line carefully, and it was buggy as hell and I had to fix most generated code by hand. Now, models write clean code with fewer bugs (far fewer) than I would. A year ago, I was doing a lot of steering during planning; now, it's rare that I don't agree with the model's first proposed solution, and even if I don't, it's most likely to fix a minor change in understanding, not to propose a substantial architectural change as it was before.

The one thing I'm not sure about is how much this is due to better prompting on my part. I doubt that this contributes much, but I still suspect that continual usage does make you more aware of what works and what does not: how much detail to provide, how to describe a problem or change, how to propose solutions while still leaving other options open.