This article is only an opinion piece with no real evidence to back it up. I disagree with most of it. I'd argue against specifics, but there are no real specif

This article is only an opinion piece with no real evidence to back it up. I disagree with most of it. I'd argue against specifics, but there are no real specifics in the article, so I'm not sure I can do any better than say "no, I think you're wrong". I also think it does the common-but-wrong thing of conflating between investment in big AI companies, and how useful GenAI is and will be. It's completely possible for the investments in OpenAI to end up worthless, and for it to collapse completely, while GenAI still ends up as big as most people clailm. Lastly, I think this article severely downplays how useful LLMs are now. > In my occupation of software development, querying ChatGPT and DeepSeek has largely replaced searching sites like StackOverflow. These chatbots generally save time with prompts like "write a TypeScript type declaration for objects that look like this", "convert this function from Python to Javascript", "provide me with a list of the scientific names of bird species mentioned directly or indirectly in this essay". I mean, yes, they do that... but there are tools today that are starting to be able to look at a real codebase, get a prompt like "fix this bug" or "implement this feature", and actually do it. None of them are perfect yet, and they're all still limited... but I think you have to have zero imagination to think that they are going to stop exactly here. I think even with no fundamental advances in the underlying tech, it is entirely possible we will be replacing most programming with prompting. I don't think that will make software devs obsolete, it might be the opposite - but "LLMs are a slightly better StackOverflow" is a huge understatement.