The HRE for several hundred years could probably seen as a proto-Germany.

In the US "government" generally refers to all three branches; is that not the case in Europe?

If LLMs actually get good enough to really automate the production of good software, it'll be disruptive for the industry and we'll all have to adjust a lot more than we already are, but I think it'd be on-net good for it to be cheaper and easier to produce good software. And, in the past, such changes have only increased the size of the tech industry.

Or, if we finally realize LLMs aren't going to get there, there'll be at least increased demand for actual software engineers to clean up all the LLM mess.

But right now is the worst, where the industry feels like it's lying to itself about what these tools are capable of.

Though I have some local workflows where I try to teach Claude about my writing style preferences via skills and examples, and it’s still not great.

They’re shooting for LLMs being able to one-shot PRs or need minimal oversight. But yeah, in practice LLMs are not there IME.

Also, a huge reason to understand the code yourself is to make sure the LLM isn't wrong, but this doesn't work if an LLM is itself generating the understanding.

> does not understand the concept of [incredibly common psychological problem]

> nearly 100% of code would be written with AI in 2026

I feel like this is kind of a meaningless metric. Or at least, it's very difficult to measure. There's a spectrum of "let AI write the code" from "don't ever even look at the code produced" to "carefully review all the output and have AI iterate on it".

Also, it seems possible as time goes on people will _stop_ using AI to write code as much, or at least shift more to the right side of that spectrum, as we start to discover all kinds of problems caused by AI-authored code with little to no human oversight.

Bug reports should describe the problem but often shouldn't try to prescribe a solution.