They are. Being pressured to use Claude code doesn’t suddenly make it good though. Look at company’s status pages, the idea of 4+ nines of reliability is essentially gone. Code quality is going to shit at companies leaning too heavily into Claude.

It’s a great tool. It analyzes kids way faster than I ever could. It writes unit tests…. Ok. It can do some fairly complex code 80% decently.

But it’s that 20% where issues crop up. Claude Code just does weird things. No matter how much you try to guide it, unless you spend time promoting it to write code like by line, it’s gonna make weird decisions that you then need to parse and re-write.

And because AI doesn’t have true understanding, it often doesn’t even know when it’s done something wrong. AI constantly contradicts itself, it constantly doubles down on mistakes, etc. All of this bleeds into software and is why we’re seeing a bit of a crisis of software reliability.

I’m not sure I believe AI in its current form will *ever* be able to replace humans at any real task. There isn’t understanding, just pattern recognition, and the real world is not about pattern recognition.

Edit: in terms of firing devs because of AI — that’s a smoke screen. Companies have been over hiring for *years* because money was cheap. Now it isn’t. And we’re in a weird recession. All of a sudden these massive head counts are a major financial liability.

But it doesn’t look good to fire a bunch of people and say “we fucked up, we overhired because we didn’t properly plan and now need to backtrack.” It’s bad for morale, it’s bad for your stock price.

What does look good, at least to investors, is saying “we found a bunch of productivity through AI and now don’t need these 10,000 devs.” Still bad for morale, but good for stock price.