> If they’re really so confident on the LLM’s effectiveness, why not just keep it voluntary, why force it on people? For people who are so confident (which, I'

> If they’re really so confident on the LLM’s effectiveness, why not just keep it voluntary, why force it on people? For people who are so confident (which, I'm not), it's an obvious step; developers who don't want to use it must either be luddites or afraid it'll take their jobs. Moving sales people to digital CRMs from paper files, moving accountants to accounting software from paper ledgers and journals, moving weavers to power looms, etc etc -- there would have been enthusiasts and holdouts at every step. The PE-bro who's currently boasting to his friends that all code at a portfolio has to be written first with Claude Code and developers are just there to catch the very rare error would have been boasting to his friends about replacing his whole development team with a team that cost 1/10 the price in Noida. Coding agents can't replace developers _right now_, and it's unclear whether scaling the current approach will allow them to at any point, but at some point (and maybe that's not until we get true AGI) they will be able to replace a substantial chunk of the developer workforce, but a significant chunk of developers will be highly resistant to it. The people you're complaining about are simply too early.