But AI agents aren't making programmers obsolete.
Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey is now the CEO of Block, which runs payment services like Square and Cash App. On Thursday, he announced plans to lay off more than 4,000 workers — 40 percent of the workforce — and Block’s share price soared.
“Something has changed,” Dorsey wrote in a tweet. “The intelligence tools we’re creating and using, paired with smaller and flatter teams, are enabling a new way of working which fundamentally changes what it means to build and run a company. And that’s accelerating rapidly.”
The announcement hit a nerve because it seemed to confirm public fears about the impact of AI on white-collar work. A widely read essay from Citrini Research last weekend predicted that AI-driven progress would drive wave after wave of layoffs.
Earlier this month, author Matt Shumer made similar claims in a viral blog post called “Something Big Is Happening.” Shumer argued that disruption has already started in the software industry. Here’s how he described being a programmer today:
I am no longer needed for the actual technical work of my job. I describe what I want built, in plain English, and it just... appears. Not a rough draft I need to fix. The finished thing. I tell the AI what I want, walk away from my computer for four hours, and come back to find the work done. Done well, done better than I would have done it myself, with no corrections needed.
He predicted that AI agents will soon come for other white-collar jobs.
“AI isn’t replacing one specific skill,” he writes. “It’s a general substitute for cognitive work.” In Shumer’s view, this means that lawyers, financial analysts, writers, radiologists, customer service representatives, and many others can expect their work to be automated.
“Nothing that can be done on a computer is safe in the medium term,” he concludes. “If it even kind of works today, you can be almost certain that in six months it’ll do it near perfectly.”
It’s hard to predict what models will be able to do in the future, so I don’t know how soon LLMs will automate the work of lawyers or financial analysts. But as a journalist, I can talk to programmers to see if their experience today matches Shumer’s dramatic description. For this story, I talked to more than a dozen software industry professionals — programmers and their bosses — about how AI agents are changing their work.
AI really is making programmers more productive
I learned that Shumer is exaggerating the pace of progress in software development. It’s not true that AI agents consistently produce production-ready software from a single prompt. Human programmers are still needed to make big-picture architectural decisions, write detailed instructions, and verify code after it’s generated.
But Shumer (and Dorsey) are right that something big is happening.
“I worked at Google for years and managed lots of people,” said Understanding AI reader Jim Muller. In his post-Google life, Muller has been writing software for two small companies he co-founded with his wife. He has made extensive use of Claude Code, which he likened to “a particularly reckless and nutty junior-level engineer.”
Despite that unflattering description, Muller believes Claude Code has dramatically increased his productivity. Even a reckless and nutty engineer is pretty useful.
I also talked to a manager who oversees a team of 20 programmers at a non-profit organization. He estimates that over the last year, coding agents have helped his team more than double their productivity — at least as measured by the number of software updates (known as pull requests) they submit each month.
But he also pointed to some downsides of the new approach.
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Understanding AI to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.
Facts Only
Jack Dorsey, CEO of Block, announced layoffs of over 4,000 workers, representing 40% of the workforce.
Block’s share price increased following the layoff announcement.
Dorsey cited AI tools and smaller teams as enabling a new way of working.
Author Matt Shumer published a viral blog post titled “Something Big Is Happening,” claiming AI agents are replacing programmers.
Shumer described AI generating production-ready code from plain English prompts without human intervention.
Shumer predicted AI would disrupt other white-collar jobs, including law, finance, and customer service.
A Citrini Research essay predicted AI-driven layoffs across industries.
Interviews with over a dozen software professionals revealed AI tools like Claude Code increase productivity but still require human oversight.
A manager at a non-profit reported AI tools doubled his team’s productivity in terms of pull requests.
Human programmers remain necessary for architectural decisions, detailed instructions, and code verification.
AI tools are described as useful but not yet capable of fully autonomous software development.
Executive Summary
AI is transforming the programming profession, but not in the way some fear. Jack Dorsey, CEO of Block, announced layoffs of over 4,000 workers, citing AI-driven productivity gains as a key factor. Meanwhile, author Matt Shumer claimed AI agents are already replacing programmers, describing a future where cognitive work is automated. However, interviews with over a dozen software professionals reveal a more nuanced reality. While AI tools like Claude Code are significantly boosting productivity—doubling output in some cases—they still require human oversight for architectural decisions, detailed instructions, and code verification. The narrative of AI replacing programmers entirely is exaggerated, but the technology is undeniably reshaping how software is built. The debate centers on whether AI is a tool for augmentation or a path to obsolescence, with evidence supporting both perspectives to varying degrees.
The broader conversation extends beyond programming, with predictions that AI could disrupt other white-collar jobs like law, finance, and customer service. Yet, the actual impact remains uncertain, as current AI tools still need human guidance. The tension between hype and reality highlights the need for careful assessment of AI's capabilities and limitations in professional settings.
Full Take
The strongest version of this narrative is that AI is accelerating productivity in programming and other white-collar fields, but the claim that it’s making humans obsolete is premature. The source acknowledges both the hype and the reality: AI tools like Claude Code are undeniably useful, doubling productivity in some cases, but they still require human oversight. The pattern here is a classic tension between technological optimism and skepticism, with some voices exaggerating AI’s current capabilities while others downplay its disruptive potential.
Root cause: The narrative is driven by a paradigm of technological determinism—the assumption that AI’s progress is inevitable and will reshape labor markets regardless of human agency. This echoes historical patterns of automation fears, from the Luddites to the rise of industrial robots. The unstated assumption is that cognitive work is reducible to computational tasks, ignoring the creative and strategic dimensions of human labor.
Implications: For human agency, the question is whether AI will augment or replace workers. Currently, it’s augmentation, but the long-term trajectory is uncertain. The beneficiaries are likely to be companies that can leverage AI to cut costs, while workers may face pressure to adapt or risk displacement. Second-order consequences include potential deskilling of professions and increased reliance on AI systems that may not be fully transparent or accountable.
Bridge questions: What skills will remain uniquely human in a world of advanced AI? How can workers and institutions adapt to ensure AI serves as a tool rather than a replacement? What evidence would change your mind about AI’s impact on employment?
Counterstrike scan: If this were a coordinated influence campaign, the playbook would involve amplifying fear of AI-driven job loss to create urgency around adoption or policy changes. The actual content, however, presents a balanced view, acknowledging both the hype and the reality, without clear alignment with a manipulative agenda.
Patterns detected: ARC-0043 Motte-and-Bailey (exaggerating AI’s current capabilities while retreating to "it’s just a tool" when challenged), ARC-0024 Ambiguity (vague claims about AI’s future impact without concrete timelines).
Sentinel — Human
The article shows strong signs of human authorship, including a distinct narrative voice, specific attributions, and idiosyncratic phrasing. No significant indicators of synthetic generation were detected.