We also read these kinds of rebuttals almost every day. The original article made a number of substantive critiques about where AI falls short in the actual requirements for building maintainable, reliable, business-critical software. So its not enough just to point to newer models without explaining how the newer models solve these problems. Can the new models take full end-to-end ownership of a system? If not, how do they solve the problem of humans taking ownership of AI generated code?

But most software isn’t critical and doesn’t need the level of reliability that’s sacrificed when using LLMs.

I don’t see the ops comment as a rebuttal. He agrees coding is not completely solved. However, it’s getting closer to being solved.