I just read a stat that made me sit up straight.
By 2026 (well, it's happening), ninety percent of all code is predicted to be AI-generated.
Not 20%. Not half. Ninety percent.
That's next year. a few months away. And I'm sitting here wondering if I should even bother learning that new framework I bookmarked last week.
This isn't speculation anymore. Developers wrote 256 billion lines of code in 2024. The projection for 2025? 600 billion lines. That jump isn't because we suddenly got way better at typing. It's AI. Writing code. Everywhere. For everyone.
And the thing is, I use these tools every day. GitHub Copilot autocompletes half my functions. ChatGPT helps me debug weird errors. Claude explains TypeScript generics when I forget how they work. I'm part of this shift.
But 90%? That's not assistance anymore. That's replacement.
Let me unpack this, because I think we need to have an honest conversation about what's actually happening to our profession.
The Numbers That Should Scare You
According to recent industry data, over 95% of developers admit to using AI-generated code. Not just trying it. Using it regularly. In production (haha, I DO IT ALSO).
Developers are now applying for 200-300 jobs just to get one callback. The job market is frozen. Companies aren't hiring because they're figuring out if they even need as many developers anymore.
AI recruitment tools are screening resumes now, not humans. Half the job posts on LinkedIn are from AI recruitment companies analyzing keywords and patterns. And they're rejecting people who use AI to write their resumes while simultaneously being AI themselves. The irony would be funny if it wasn't so bleak.
Tech job openings are down. Way down. Not because demand for software is down. Demand is up. But supply of people needed to write it? AI's handling that now.
This is from real 2025 data, not projections. This is happening right now.
What This Actually Means (Beyond the Hype)
Let's be real about what "90% AI-generated code" looks like in practice.
It doesn't mean AI writes entire apps from scratch while you sip coffee. It means:
Code completion is AI-generated. That's maybe 30-40% of what you type just autocompleted.
Boilerplate and scaffolding is AI-generated. Starting new projects, setting up configs, creating basic CRUD operations. AI does this instantly.
Bug fixes and refactoring suggestions are AI-generated. You write code, AI suggests improvements, you accept them.
Tests are AI-generated. Write a function, AI generates the test cases.
Documentation is AI-generated. Code comments, README files, API docs. AI writes them based on your code.
Add all that up and yeah, 90% tracks. But it's not like AI is the senior developer and you're unemployed. It's more like AI is the junior developer who does all the tedious stuff, and you're the senior reviewing and deciding what stays.
Except here's the problem. That's exactly how you trained to become a senior developer. By doing the tedious stuff. Writing boilerplate. Making mistakes. Debugging. Learning.
If AI does all that now, how does the next generation of developers learn?
The Job Market Reality (It's Worse Than You Think)
Let me paint you a picture of what hiring looks like in 2025.
Post a junior developer position. Get 500 applications in 24 hours. Half of them have AI-written resumes that look perfect but the candidates can't code in the interview.
Post a senior developer position. Get 1000 applications. Most are actually qualified. But you only need one person because AI is doing what would've taken a team of three.
Companies are calling this a "hiring freeze." That's corporate speak for "we're figuring out how much AI can replace."
Experienced developers are saying this is the "oh fuck" moment. You either get on board with AI fast and stay relevant, or you step off and get left behind.
The timeline for keeping your skills current has compressed from years to months. Framework knowledge that took you a year to build is obsolete in six months. Best practices from last quarter are outdated today.
And here's the kicker. With AI, speed matters more than quality now. Ship fast, iterate fast, don't worry about clean code because you can just AI-refactor it later. The careful, thoughtful development approach is being called "antiquated."
If you're not coding at AI speed, you're too slow.
My Personal Crisis (And Probably Yours Too)
I've been building with JavaScript and TypeScript for eight years. I'm good at what I do. I can architect systems, debug complex issues, mentor juniors, ship production code that scales.
But last week I caught myself thinking "why am I manually writing this function when Copilot can generate it in two seconds?"
And then "why am I learning this new library when I can just ask ChatGPT how to use it when I need it?"
And then the scary one: "am I still a developer if AI writes most of my code?"
Because here's the uncomfortable truth. I'm faster with AI. Way faster. Tasks that took me a day now take an hour. But did I learn anything? Did I actually understand what I built? Or did I just become really good at prompting?
The skill is shifting from "writing code" to "directing AI to write code." From developer to... what? AI whisperer? Prompt engineer? Code reviewer?
And if that's the future, what happens to people who loved writing code? Because I got into this field because I love solving problems with code. Not because I love telling an AI to solve problems while I watch.
The Controversial Part (Let Me Say What Others Won't)
There's this narrative that AI is "augmenting developers, not replacing them."
That's corporate PR. Here's the real story.
AI is absolutely replacing certain types of developers. Junior developers specifically. Entry-level positions are vanishing because AI can do what they did, faster and cheaper.
The bootcamp graduate who could get a junior role in 2023? In 2025, they're competing with AI that writes better code and doesn't need salary or benefits.
Companies used to hire juniors to do grunt work while learning. Now AI does the grunt work instantly. So why hire juniors?
The path from "I learned to code" to "I have a dev job" is broken. Maybe permanently.
And for mid-level developers, AI is compression. Companies that needed 10 developers now need 4, because those 4 with AI tools can do what 10 did before.
The only "safe" developers are the seniors who can architect systems, make high-level decisions, and review AI-generated code for bugs and security issues.
But here's the problem with that. If juniors can't get jobs, they never become mid-level. If mid-levels are getting compressed, they can't grow into seniors. The pipeline is breaking.
Ten years from now, who will be the senior developers reviewing AI code if nobody got hired as a junior in 2025?
What Nobody Is Talking About (But Should Be)
The quality problem is real and getting ignored.
AI generates code fast. But is it good code? Well-architected code? Secure code? Maintainable code?
Recent research found that code churn the amount of code that gets rewritten or deleted within two weeks has doubled. Meaning AI code needs to be fixed more often.
Duplicate code is up 4x because AI doesn't refactor. It copy-pastes patterns. Your codebase becomes bloated with repeated logic.
Security vulnerabilities are common. Up to 30% of AI-generated code snippets have security issues. SQL injection, XSS, authentication bypass, all the classics.
But we're shipping it anyway because speed beats quality now. Technical debt is compounding at a rate we've never seen before. And nobody's talking about who's going to fix this mess in 5 years.
The Things That Still Matter (Maybe)
So what do you do? How do you stay relevant when AI can code?
Here's what I'm betting on, though I could be completely wrong:
Architecture and system design. AI can write functions. It struggles with designing entire systems that need to scale, handle complexity, and integrate with legacy code.
Code review and quality assurance. AI generates code. Someone needs to verify it works, is secure, and doesn't have weird edge cases.
Business logic and domain knowledge. AI knows programming. It doesn't know your business, your users, your specific problems. That context still requires humans.
Communication and collaboration. AI can't run meetings, explain technical decisions to stakeholders, or mentor team members.
Ethics and responsibility. When AI-generated code fails, crashes systems, or causes security breaches, a human takes the fall. That responsibility can't be outsourced.
But honestly? I'm not sure any of this will be enough. Because AI is improving every day. What it can't do today, it might do tomorrow.
The Fork in the Road (Where We're Actually At)
We're at a decision point as an industry. Two paths forward:
Path one: Embrace AI fully. Accept that "developer" means something different now. Focus on the high-level thinking, let AI handle implementation. Retrain constantly. Move fast.
Path two: Resist AI. Stick to fundamentals. Write code manually. Value quality over speed. Accept you'll be slower but maybe more thoughtful.
The problem is Path two probably isn't viable if you need to pay rent. Companies aren't going to pay you to write code slowly when AI does it fast.
So Path one seems inevitable. Which means we all become something different than we were. The job changes. The skills change. The entire profession transforms.
And maybe that's fine. Maybe that's progress. We moved from punch cards to high-level languages. From assembly to JavaScript. Each shift made us more productive but further from the metal.
This is just the next step. From writing code to directing AI that writes code.
But I can't shake the feeling we're losing something fundamental. The craft. The art. The actual skill of programming.
What Happens Next (My Best Guess)
Here's my prediction for the next 24 months.
Junior developer positions nearly disappear. Entry-level developers need to show AI-assisted productivity from day one. The learning period shrinks from years to months.
Bootcamps shift focus from teaching code to teaching AI prompting and code review. You learn how to use AI tools, not how to code from scratch.
Developer salaries split into two tiers. Seniors who can work with AI make more because they're multipliers. Everyone else makes less because they're competing with AI.
Companies consolidate development teams. Why have 20 developers when 8 with AI tools can do the same work?
Open source struggles. If AI generates most code, who contributes to foundational libraries? Who maintains core infrastructure?
Technical debt explodes. AI-generated code piles up faster than anyone can review it properly. Major outages and security breaches become more common.
A new role emerges: AI code auditor. Someone who does nothing but review AI-generated code for quality and security.
And probably, the definition of "software developer" fundamentally changes. We become orchestrators more than implementers. Architects more than builders.
Whether that's better or worse depends on who you ask.
The Question We Should All Be Asking
Not "will AI replace developers?" That's already happening. The better question is:
"What kind of developer do you want to be in a world where AI writes most of the code?"
Because that world is here. It's not coming. It's now.
You can fight it. You can embrace it. You can pretend it's not real. But you can't ignore it.
I don't have the answer. I'm still figuring it out myself. Some days I'm excited about the productivity boost. Other days I'm terrified I'm becoming obsolete.
But I know this: sitting still is not an option. The 90% stat isn't a warning. It's a reality. And we're all going to have to adapt faster than we've ever adapted before.
The developers who thrive will be the ones who figure out how to be valuable in the 10%. The ones who bring something AI can't. Judgment. Creativity. Domain knowledge. Business understanding. Human connection.
The rest? I don't know what happens to the rest.
My Honest Take (No BS)
I started this article thinking I'd have a clear position. Either pro-AI or anti-AI. A take I could defend.
But the truth is I'm conflicted. And I think that's okay. Because this situation is genuinely unprecedented.
AI code generation is simultaneously:
- Making me more productive
- Making junior developers unemployable
- Creating massive technical debt
- Accelerating innovation
- Destroying traditional learning paths
- Opening new possibilities
All of these things are true at the same time.
So what do I do? What do you do?
I'm using AI tools. I'm also making sure I understand what they generate. I'm building faster. I'm also taking time to learn fundamentals. I'm adapting. I'm also trying not to lose what made me love this work in the first place.
It's messy. It's uncertain. It's kind of scary.
But it's where we are. And pretending otherwise doesn't help.
So let's talk about it. Let's figure this out together. Because if 90% of code is AI-generated by 2026, we've got a few months or so to decide who we want to be in that world.
And that decision can't wait.
What's your take? Are you using AI to code? Are you worried? Excited? Terrified?
Drop your thoughts. Let's have the honest conversation nobody else is having.
Follow my journey:
Follow me on X (Twitter)
Senior Full Stack Developer | Figuring This Out Like Everyone Else
If this made you uncomfortable, share it anyway. We need to stop pretending this isn't happening.
Top comments (27)
AI isn’t replacing all developers yet, but it’s absolutely changing what “developer” means. The value now lies less in typing syntax and more in understanding systems, context, and making good decisions.
I feel it's a bit like when you want to build a house extension. Maybe once upon a time you'd have done it all yourself, but now you hire a brickie, plumber, plasterer, electrician etc. Your job becomes that of architect. But if you've never done all these other jobs, how can you tell if youre getting what you wanted?
AI is a bunch of skilled tradesmen, but right now it sucks at being an architect. Only a skilled programmer can tell if the result is fit for purpose. And I can't see that changing any time soon.
One of the most hard-hitting articles I've come across in quite a while - good article, which asks some tough and deep questions, but quite gloomy - I'm pointing out this sentence in particular:
"Developers are now applying for 200-300 jobs just to get one callback"
That's probably the most scary sentence in the article ...
Compare that to a decade ago, when companies were scrambling to find devs - anyone with some decent 'coding' ability would be snatched from the middle of the street, and put behind a desk as a developer for a comfortable salary - the job market for devs was a "seller's market" - I think it was the "golden age" ...
Would all of the decline be attributable to AI ? Probably a large part of it, but I have the feeling somehow that it already started before AI came on the scene - but that AI accelerated it, a lot ...
Two years ago I wouldn't have thought things would evolve (some would day "deteriorate") THIS fast - it's far exceeded my expectations ...
So yeah, these are big questions, I would almost say philosophical ones - what do "we" want to be?
If right now you'd be 16 or 17, leaving high school, choosing a discipline/subject for college or uni - would you still choose "development"? Maybe the 'old fashioned' hands-on blue collar jobs (plumber, bricklayer, you name it) are going to experience a big 'renaissance' as they're much harder to replace by "AI" ...
P.S. an antidote to the gloominess and pessimism - I came across this article, which has a far more optimistic take on the subject:
dev.to/j4s0nc/the-bloated-kitchen-...
And this is what I sort of see as the answer - also to the question of the junior/mid level dilemma: I think what "boot camps" etc should start teaching is indeed "systems thinking" and "big picture thinking" - forget about coding bubble sorts etc etc, use 2 or 3 days to teach the basics of coding, then switch to teaching "the big picture":
Backend vs frontend, cloud/devops, what is HTTP, what is a database, why is security important - but only the basics - don't even bother teaching the finesses of SQL or whatever, all of that can be picked up "as you go" ... chefs, architects, system thinkers - even "juniors" need to be just that.
Hey leob,
Thank you very much for reading my article and for the kind words about the "antidote"—I’m glad it offered a different perspective.
The era you called the "golden age" was also the time when the barrier to entry collapsed. We ended up with an oversupply of developers doing low-value, high-churn work, driven by "tech for tech's sake" instead of business problem-solving. This created massive, complex, and ugly codebases—the "bloated kitchen."
AI may be the necessary shock that is ending the era of mediocrity. It can handle all that rote work instantly, forcing the market to focus on what actually matters.
I agree 100% with your solution for the next generation:
Bootcamps should teach systems thinking and big picture thinking. Backend, DevOps, security fundamentals, and what a business problem is.
The future isn't about writing code; it's about architectural intent, judgment, and curating the output. These are the higher-level skills that should be focused on, and they are the skills that will hold value.
The job market maybe painful right now, but is it a necessary correction that will bring the focus back to craftsmanship and actual value? I hope so...
Thanks again for connecting the dots between our posts and for fueling this conversation.
/j4s0nc
I've loved the act of programming since I started doing it in the mid-80s. But even more, I love getting stuff out there that helps others do their jobs better, get past their pain points, etc. So to me, shipping is king. And AI helps me ship faster, which is a win in my book.
You can still be programming in 10 years -- but you might be doing it just as a hobby.
We are the blacksmiths of our era.
This is a bold assumption, but it's possible that we are generating more code, and that 90% actually refers to a percentage of the newly generated code that doesn't necessarily fully overlap with hand-crafted code?
On a side note, I haven't seen anyone, historically, tracking metrics on how much code was written (when it became available and popular) by autocomplete, auto-generated/refactor tools by IDEs, or copy-pasted from SO, as opposed to being manually typed word-by-word into a simple notepad. AI is just a tool, it does some of the work, not all of it, and it doesn't operate autonomously. Ultimately, it still requires an operator, just like an IDE.
Regarding the LinkedIn part: Firms were using algorithms for screening CVs long before AI, among many other less-than-ideal practices that perhaps should concern us more than AI usage. To keep this concise, I believe the recruitment process is broken in this day and age. It was broken before, but with today's scale, edge cases are no longer so edgy.
As for the junior replacement part: Again, this is just my opinion, but every time people compare AI with junior developers, I feel it's truly disrespectful to junior developers. I've had and continue to have juniors on my teams, and they bring a value that AI can never replace. They offer fresh ideas from a constantly changing world perspective, possess the energy to be bold and try new things, and accept failure better than some seniors, who might feel their ego hurt just by admitting "I don't know." They have potential, in contrast to AI, which is merely a mediocre (in the most literal sense of the term) aggregator. Any company that currently believes it shouldn't invest in junior talent will likely be plagued by high turnover and monstrous projects that nobody understands how they work or why they break, again, mediocrity here, which maybe is where the so called "professional" software is aiming for idk.
Ultimately, AI is just a tool, neither good nor bad. I have seen really great code, but also some of the most bad, spaghetti, and wtf code in my career, before any AI was doing anything, the only thing that change is speed imho. Our job is now rapidly evolving again, as it has many times before.
have you tried those tools ?
I have
Where did you get the 90% figure from? It seems very optimistic even for an AI fan.
How is it doing that? It is not thinking about new solutions, it is generating old solutions.
I wouldn't trust learning to AI. It is more like a librarian that knows where to find the information you are looking for. And sometimes it just fabricates information out of thin air.
I think the biggest problem is that people are spending a lot of money on AI now. But we already seen the cracks in the good news show. What will happen when the AI promises are starting to fail or beginning to create more problems than it is worth. Who is going to come up with the billions to pay off their debts? It is not like the banks where we need to store our money.
More productive + massive technical debt describes the same mistake many managers have made for decades: ship shit faster, move fast and break things, minimal viable product, or whatever they liked to call it. Now AI is the excuse for caring even less for code quality, security, usability, and maintainability. That's not innovation. That's the opposite of innovation. Not AI, but people's decisions are destroying traditional learning paths, if there will be less seniors in the future, it's our fault as an industry. After the burst of the current bubble, current AI will just be another generation of helpful tools and resources, like IDEs, linters, and StackOverflow used to make coding faster and more comfortable in the past decade. Companies will need more human developers again eventually.
My take: personally, I'm already a senior, working with AI and far from satisfied with its lacking code quality. As a senior, I'd probably learn to code as a hobby, contribute to open source or create other kinds of non profit projects, while working other jobs in the meantime. That's exactly what I used to do for several years when I was young by the way. Whatever is your take, good luck and don't believe the hype.
AI isn’t killing devs; it’s killing shallow dev skills. If your value was boilerplate, you’re replaceable. If you can reason, design, and judge code quality, you’re fine. The real crisis is the broken junior pipeline, not mass senior unemployment. Adapt fast or fall behind.
I use AI on daily basis and it is ultimately helping me being better developer. But I still think many "predictions" are exaggerated and will turn inaccurate. People like to hear doomsaying. It sells better than sober-minded analysis.
I have recently read an interesting question: If AI generates so much new code so quickly and it is so helping devs shipping faster, where is the spike in the new software being delivered? Did you noticed any when you think about it now?
The effect of AI seems to shift us from writing the code to understanding it and moreover - understanding what are we doing and why. And this is a good thing. I am somewhat afraid of the future, because the economy struggles and war is knocking on our eastern door (I live in Czechia). But I am not afraid about the future of programming and my carreer.
Just yesterday I read an article about the current state of a thing called "vector databases". Have you heard about them? They were predicted to kill traditional database systems because of being so much more clever. Pinecone company got 750 million dollars valuation in 2023... The reality check two years ago - it is not that easy. It was an evolution forward, but not such a radical revolution as once predicted.
And this happens to most of the IT industry buzz-words I had chance to witness in the past decade I am part of the show. "Agile", "cloud", "DevOps", you name it... All of those brought significant leap forward, but also accompanied with a number of steps sideways, none was an ultimate solution and all introduced new problems and challenges to tackle.
Some comments may only be visible to logged-in visitors. Sign in to view all comments.