“Coding” is an ambiguous term for many tasks and responsibilities. There is no agreed upon boundary at which point it will be “solved”. Consider these three cliches making the rounds now:
- Coding is largely solved? (ambiguous point of contention)
- Verification is not solved. (consensus)
- Maintainability is not solved. (consensus)
I have practical needs and I don’t see them getting met by arguing the semantics of point 1 while we’re suffering from 2 and 3. On a level playing field we might be able to negotiate “coding is solved” into a meaningful conversation, but the funding doesn’t want that, it wants a Superintelligence.
This is exactly what the article is trying to argue, in the authors own words, he wants a “meaningful conversation”. As for the quotes, it’s challenging the claim that “coding is largely solved”, as made by Boris Cherny at Anthropic, by dissecting what is meant by both “coding” and “solved”.