> The rule of thumb is: An agent can write it, but a human has to understand it before it gets pushed to prod.

The article essentially claims that no, that line of thinking is false. If the agent writes all of it (or too much of it, where "too much" is still not well defined), then your ability to understand it will atrophy with time, and you will either a) never push to prod, because you can't understand it well enough, or b) push to prod anyway, and cause bugs and outages.

I think the article is correct.

> I'm still not convinced about the doom and gloom over developers being replaced.

Agreed. The agents are just not good enough to write code unsupervised, or supervised by people without senior-level skills. And frankly it's hard to imagine them getting there. Each new release of the coding tools/models is a mixed bag. Some things are better, some things are worse, and the gains are diminishing with each iteration. I am afraid that we're going to hit a ceiling at some point, at least with the transformer architecture.

> but for now we're all just reading random blog posts and see how others are faring and experimenting.

Yes, exactly, and many people are not faring well. The article cites several examples of people feeling less capable after using LLMs to write code for a while.