I think it's too extreme a definition. It's not like we need to wait to get to that level to seriously consider the effects when 90% of software is not that. It feels more relevant to consider where the domain of things it can accomplish is equal to 90% of software creation.
> if you know what you are doing, are you really faster prompting the AI to generate code for you than writing the code directly? I would argue that for something completely trivial, I can completely imagine that I have written the code in vim before the IDE integrating the AI has even loaded.
This would indicate me you're far higher than the median software engineer -- you're maybe top 0.1%
> when you have a bug in the codebase, does the AI find it for you? Because if you have to debug it yourself, it may not be fun to have to dig into AI-generated code.
AI is probably better at debugging than most software engineers. If your point is that it's worse than the top 0.1% of debuggers, then I'd agree but I'd argue it should get better over time. The question of if there's physical or theoretical limitations on it getting better is an interesting one. There's still a massive amount of code to train on.
> Sure, and with AI they will be replaced by the same amount of startups building a CRM with AI.
Yes, perhaps this implies value must accrue to something that's not the CRM and more how the AI plays into it.