Will AI fundamentally change the programmer's role?

A recent essay on dev.to lays out 26 predictions for AI's impact on software production, programmer roles, and power dynamics, sparking discussion on the future of development.

Where It Happened

The discussion stems from an essay titled "The end of the programmer: 26 predictions I dare you to break" published on dev.to in June 2026 by @ad_soares_9901444a323f3e2. The piece presents a series of theses across three horizons (1, 3, and 5+ years) regarding AI's influence on software development. While a single author's work, its detailed predictions implicitly frame a debate on the future of programming.

Side A — Pure Execution Roles Will Diminish

One perspective, strongly articulated by @ad_soares_9901444a323f3e2, posits that the role of the programmer focused solely on execution is rapidly becoming obsolete. This view suggests that AI agents will increasingly handle routine coding tasks, making the traditional "coder" redundant in AI-mature organizations. The essay states, "The programmer who only codes loses their seat at the most AI-mature companies." It argues that the threat isn't AI replacing developers directly, but rather "another programmer who uses AI better than you." This shift is expected to shrink traditional junior roles, as the tasks historically used for training—like CRUD operations and simple fixes—are precisely what AI can automate efficiently. The author suggests that if a programmer's primary function is to not impede the process, "they can be removed without loss." The core skill demanded will shift from writing code to effectively directing and validating AI outputs, with the new interview question becoming: "can you steer an AI to a correct, safe, and useful delivery?"

Side B — Human Judgment and Direction Will Gain Relevance

Conversely, @ad_soares_9901444a323f3e2 also argues that while execution changes, the fundamental value of human judgment and oversight in software production will increase. This position emphasizes that AI does not eliminate software but instead "redistributes power within the production chain." The essay highlights that "execution tends to get cheaper; judgment, more valuable." AI may handle implementation, but it cannot resolve ambiguity, ensure accountability, manage risk, or navigate complex business decisions and legacy systems. Therefore, the programmer's role will not disappear, but rather evolve, with "whoever understands, directs, validates, governs, and takes responsibility gains relevance." The new critical question becomes: "who guarantees the AI understood the right problem, touched the right place, executed safely, and produced real value for the business?" This perspective suggests that while the nature of programming tasks will change, the need for human intelligence at higher levels of the software development lifecycle remains robust.

What's Underneath

The underlying tension in these predictions isn't a direct conflict between opposing groups, but an internal debate about the definition of a programmer. Both sides, as presented by the author, agree that AI will profoundly impact the field. The disagreement, or rather the nuanced distinction, lies in identifying which aspects of the programmer's role are truly core and resilient to automation, and which are merely incidental or ripe for delegation. It's a re-evaluation of where human value resides in an increasingly AI-augmented development pipeline.

The investor read

This debate signals a fundamental shift in the labor market for software development. The demand for pure coding skills may decrease, while roles requiring strategic oversight, AI integration, and complex problem-solving will likely command a premium. This could lead to a restructuring of development teams and a re-evaluation of hiring strategies. For investors, it suggests potential for tools that augment high-level judgment and for companies that can effectively leverage AI for execution, rather than just code generation.