git.stevedylan.dev

chore: publish post f9cc068f

Steve · 2026-02-27 20:21 1 file(s) · +4 −4

packages/client/src/content/post/programmers-on-the-verge-of-extinction.mdx +4 −4

description: "Examining the parallels between art, AI, and the existential threat to programmers"
tags: ["ai", "programming", "philosophy"]
ogImage: "/blog-images/other/programmer-extinction.png"
hidden: true
hidden: false
---

![cover](https://files.stevedylan.dev/programmer-extinction.png)


The argument could be made that programming is in many ways a type of art. It involves creative solutions to problems that can be solved numerous ways. It can evolve your perspective and strengthen your mind. In my personal experience I even find it therapeutic. However there is a key difference with this and what Sandersen draws: the product. 

Unlike most art, the product of programming is indeed useful. For the majority it's why the programming exists in the first place. The finished software is designed to be used and consumed. Those of us who do software development professionally are expected to produce, and to do it quickly. AI has only made this worse since agents bring the ability to write _lots_ of code at once. In the grand scheme of our programmer evolution, the need to deliver the product outweighs the need to grow.
Unlike most art, the product of programming is indeed useful, let alone profitable. For the majority it's why the programming exists in the first place. The finished software is designed to be used, consumed, and often purchased. Those of us who do software development professionally are expected to produce, and to do it quickly. AI has only made this worse since agents bring the ability to write _lots_ of code at once. In the grand scheme of our programmer evolution, the need to deliver the product outweighs the need to grow.

## Extinction

In the tug-of-war between growth and producing, programmers face an existential threat. Juniors are faced with the decision of switching careers because the industry tells them they are replaceable. If the next generation of programmers sticks around and they don't experience the growing pains of non-AI assisted development, how will they be able to solve harder problems? The senior engineers will only be around for so long. For those juniors, AI can only take you so far, and you better hope that it doesn't make mistakes in fields like medicine or security. When the machine built to give specific doses of radiation suddenly gives too much because of an obscure bug, they're not gonna blame the AI agent that wrote it. An extreme example perhaps, but with how much our world depends on software, this type of tech debt adds up. Just look at how many times the internet has basically crashed over the last two years due to bugs from cloud providers. 
In the tug-of-war between growth and producing, programmers face an existential threat. Juniors are faced with the decision of switching careers because the industry tells them they are replaceable, even though the [CEO of AWS would say otherwise](https://www.theregister.com/2025/08/21/aws_ceo_entry_level_jobs_opinion/). If the next generation of programmers sticks around and they don't experience the growing pains of non-AI assisted development, how will they be able to solve harder problems? The senior engineers will only be around for so long. For those juniors, AI can only take you so far, and you better hope that it doesn't make mistakes in fields like medicine or security. When the machine built to give specific doses of radiation suddenly gives too much because of an obscure bug, they're not gonna blame the AI agent that wrote it. An extreme example perhaps, but with how much our world depends on software, this type of tech debt adds up. Just look at how many times the internet has basically crashed over the last two years due to bugs from cloud providers. 

True programmers exist because they're passionate about solving real and hard problems. They enjoy the satisfaction of solving a puzzle that helps people. By offloading that problem solving to an agent, we're cheating ourselves of an experience that would give us a sense of fulfillment, and knowledge that we would otherwise not have. Not only that, but the desire to maintain that software down the road will be nonexistent. Why would we bother trying to fix bugs in something that cost us zero blood sweat and tears? 

## Moving Forward

It's hard to say what the future looks like. On one hand I like to be optimistic that traditional programming will continue to exist, but I also recognize that AI has been the most disruptive technology we've seen in decades. There's a chance none of us are writing code in a decade or possibly sooner, but I don't live in the projections of the future. Instead I'll be trying to find some kind of balance between using AI and doing the work manually, with the key objective of _enjoying_ the work I do. I want to solve the harder problems, problems that can't be solved with vibe coding. I can't do that if I let my mind become dull.
It's hard to say what the future looks like.  On one hand I like to be optimistic that traditional programming will continue to exist, but I also know plenty of programmers who don't care how they get to the final product, and that's their choice. There's a chance none of us are writing code in a decade or possibly sooner, but I don't live in the projections of the future. Instead I'll be trying to find some kind of balance between using AI and doing the work manually, with the key objective of _enjoying_ the work I do. I want to solve the harder problems, problems that can't be solved with vibe coding. I can't do that if I let my mind become dull.

> Therefore, we have the power here and not the machine, for it was created to try to make something useful. But it cannot admire what it made.

4	4		description: "Examining the parallels between art, AI, and the existential threat to programmers"
5	5		tags: ["ai", "programming", "philosophy"]
6	6		ogImage: "/blog-images/other/programmer-extinction.png"
7		-	hidden: true
	7	+	hidden: false
8	8		---
9	9
10	10		![cover](https://files.stevedylan.dev/programmer-extinction.png)

45	45
46	46		The argument could be made that programming is in many ways a type of art. It involves creative solutions to problems that can be solved numerous ways. It can evolve your perspective and strengthen your mind. In my personal experience I even find it therapeutic. However there is a key difference with this and what Sandersen draws: the product.
47	47
48		-	Unlike most art, the product of programming is indeed useful. For the majority it's why the programming exists in the first place. The finished software is designed to be used and consumed. Those of us who do software development professionally are expected to produce, and to do it quickly. AI has only made this worse since agents bring the ability to write _lots_ of code at once. In the grand scheme of our programmer evolution, the need to deliver the product outweighs the need to grow.
	48	+	Unlike most art, the product of programming is indeed useful, let alone profitable. For the majority it's why the programming exists in the first place. The finished software is designed to be used, consumed, and often purchased. Those of us who do software development professionally are expected to produce, and to do it quickly. AI has only made this worse since agents bring the ability to write _lots_ of code at once. In the grand scheme of our programmer evolution, the need to deliver the product outweighs the need to grow.
49	49
50	50		## Extinction
51	51
52		-	In the tug-of-war between growth and producing, programmers face an existential threat. Juniors are faced with the decision of switching careers because the industry tells them they are replaceable. If the next generation of programmers sticks around and they don't experience the growing pains of non-AI assisted development, how will they be able to solve harder problems? The senior engineers will only be around for so long. For those juniors, AI can only take you so far, and you better hope that it doesn't make mistakes in fields like medicine or security. When the machine built to give specific doses of radiation suddenly gives too much because of an obscure bug, they're not gonna blame the AI agent that wrote it. An extreme example perhaps, but with how much our world depends on software, this type of tech debt adds up. Just look at how many times the internet has basically crashed over the last two years due to bugs from cloud providers.
	52	+	In the tug-of-war between growth and producing, programmers face an existential threat. Juniors are faced with the decision of switching careers because the industry tells them they are replaceable, even though the [CEO of AWS would say otherwise](https://www.theregister.com/2025/08/21/aws_ceo_entry_level_jobs_opinion/). If the next generation of programmers sticks around and they don't experience the growing pains of non-AI assisted development, how will they be able to solve harder problems? The senior engineers will only be around for so long. For those juniors, AI can only take you so far, and you better hope that it doesn't make mistakes in fields like medicine or security. When the machine built to give specific doses of radiation suddenly gives too much because of an obscure bug, they're not gonna blame the AI agent that wrote it. An extreme example perhaps, but with how much our world depends on software, this type of tech debt adds up. Just look at how many times the internet has basically crashed over the last two years due to bugs from cloud providers.
53	53
54	54		True programmers exist because they're passionate about solving real and hard problems. They enjoy the satisfaction of solving a puzzle that helps people. By offloading that problem solving to an agent, we're cheating ourselves of an experience that would give us a sense of fulfillment, and knowledge that we would otherwise not have. Not only that, but the desire to maintain that software down the road will be nonexistent. Why would we bother trying to fix bugs in something that cost us zero blood sweat and tears?
55	55
56	56		## Moving Forward
57	57
58		-	It's hard to say what the future looks like. On one hand I like to be optimistic that traditional programming will continue to exist, but I also recognize that AI has been the most disruptive technology we've seen in decades. There's a chance none of us are writing code in a decade or possibly sooner, but I don't live in the projections of the future. Instead I'll be trying to find some kind of balance between using AI and doing the work manually, with the key objective of _enjoying_ the work I do. I want to solve the harder problems, problems that can't be solved with vibe coding. I can't do that if I let my mind become dull.
	58	+	It's hard to say what the future looks like. On one hand I like to be optimistic that traditional programming will continue to exist, but I also know plenty of programmers who don't care how they get to the final product, and that's their choice. There's a chance none of us are writing code in a decade or possibly sooner, but I don't live in the projections of the future. Instead I'll be trying to find some kind of balance between using AI and doing the work manually, with the key objective of _enjoying_ the work I do. I want to solve the harder problems, problems that can't be solved with vibe coding. I can't do that if I let my mind become dull.
59	59
60	60		> Therefore, we have the power here and not the machine, for it was created to try to make something useful. But it cannot admire what it made.