It's really only safe to assume clay=code in the context that the author provided. Even then, it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It's easy to assume that becaus

It's really only safe to assume clay=code in the context that the author provided. Even then, it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It's easy to assume that because this person is a coder that they are also careful with logic, but it doesn't seem to be the case. My take: clay coders are on the way out (or shape shifting) as AI becomes capable of writing code that can be thought of as clay. I hope to see you on the other side where we'll talk about systems that outpace the analogy.