To solve problems. Coding is the means to an end, not the end itself.
> careful configuration of our editor, tinkering with dot files, and dev environments
That may be fun for you, but it doesn’t add value. It’s accidental complexity that I am happy to delegate.
A contractor who prefers a specific brand of tool is wrong because the tool is a means to an end
This is what you sound like. Just because you don't understand the value of a craftsman picking and maintaining their tools doesn't mean the value isn't real.
And it also seems exceedingly wasteful to boot.
I think the real problem is that it's actually increasingly difficult to defend the artisanal "no-AI" approach. I say this as a prior staff-level engineer at a big tech company who has spent the last six months growing my SaaS to ~$100k in ARR, and it never could have happened without AI. I like the kind of coding the OP is talking about too, but ultimately I'm getting paid to solve a problem for my customers. Getting too attached to the knives is missing the point.
My [GPT5's -poster's note] take / Reflections
I find the article a useful provocation:
it asks us to reflect on what we value in being programmers.
It’s not anti-AI per se, but it is anti-losing-the-core craft.
For someone in your position (in *redacted* / Europe)
it raises questions about what kind of programming work you want:
deep, challenging, craft-oriented, or more tool/AI mediated.
It might also suggest you think about building skills
that are robust to automation: e.g., architecture,
critical thinking, complex problem solving, domain knowledge.
The identity crisis is less about “will we have programmers” and
more “what shapes will programming roles take”.