I stopped reading this after realizing that most of the article depends on an assumption that is unlikely to happens, which is that AI can produce high quality and complex software.
One important aspect of software is that it's not much easier to read than rewrite the code. Currently AI generated code needs much reading and checking, and some rounds of chats to iterate. I am even not quite happy to read humans' code, nevertheless AI's.
Only when one day AI can code that needs little human intervention will the article mean something to me. But is that ever possible? The crux is that a software bug is not in the code, it's the mismatch between the code and our mental model. Programming language is a precise way for us to present the mental model. Without a program, how do we tell AI precisely of our mental model? By natural language we can never do that. Even we can do that, we're only repeating a program in a extremely unconvinent way.
I do agree that AI can help developers spend less time on boilerplate and creeping in documentations. It can greatly improve productivity of the software industry.
One important aspect of software is that it's not much easier to read than rewrite the code. Currently AI generated code needs much reading and checking, and some rounds of chats to iterate. I am even not quite happy to read humans' code, nevertheless AI's.
Only when one day AI can code that needs little human intervention will the article mean something to me. But is that ever possible? The crux is that a software bug is not in the code, it's the mismatch between the code and our mental model. Programming language is a precise way for us to present the mental model. Without a program, how do we tell AI precisely of our mental model? By natural language we can never do that. Even we can do that, we're only repeating a program in a extremely unconvinent way.
I do agree that AI can help developers spend less time on boilerplate and creeping in documentations. It can greatly improve productivity of the software industry.