An alternate term is starting to appear, flow coding or agentic coding, where the tool is supervised and direced into coding precise areas under human architectural control, with all the programmer understanding that entails.
The author hints at this idea toward the end and likens it to a skilled builder who uses tools to make a precise part.
It's basic and confuses uses abstractions with not knowing fundamentals.
It goes into all the common places of "AI will replace you if you don't think" and pretends you fundamentally don't reason or think if you interact with an abstraction or AI.
The examples are so rudimentary that I very much suspect this person is not particularly good at software engineering.
People will read this title and comment because doom posting about AI is what people want to do if they're uncertain about "losing value" but it's very low quality.
Or a different outcome
In aviation-minded companies, human-reviewed guardrails will always be in place, some may eventually decide to might as well have humans write the whole thing to begin with to keep it end-to-end auditable.
In automotive-minded companies, "chabuduo" is the norm and agentic may be "good enough if it appears to work" and only involve humans when visible crises surface, in which case the most desired programmer are those who can churn.