As obvious as it seems to say, with no new juniors there will be no new seniors.

It's 2026 and people still believe in measuring productivity by lines of code^W^W^Wnumber of commits? Amazing.

Two vibecoders are walking down a forest path.

One of them spots a Zig codebase and challenges the other: “I'll give you $100 to convert this codebase to Rust!”. They accept and after spending $1000 worth of tokens on a thousand commits the codebase is now in Rust.

On the way back, the second vibecoder spots the same codebase again, and challenges back: “I'll give you $100 to convert this codebase to Zig!”. Another gajillion tokens later, the codebase is now in Zig.

Walking a little more, one vibecoder (in a moment of unusual clarity) asks the other: “It feels like we just did this for nothing”. “No”, the other responds, ”we just increased our company productivity by two thousand commits per day!”.

At some point AI labs will start benchmarking their latest models by the number of humans they still have working in their companies.

“Junior” is the wrong distinction to make. I’ve recently worked with senior engineers who are terrible at wielding agents, and recent grad engineers who multiple themselves 100x. The main way I look for software engineers now are:

- Deep curiosity and ability to absorb new information quickly - Evidence of ability to wield and coordinate agents to the max - Ability to clearly communicate ideas

You have these skills, you can conquer the software world.

Loathe this company and everything they put out.

As if Anthropic was a model of successful company...

They are nowhere near profitable, have terribly bad products riddled with bugs (9,000+ open reports on Claude Code), and have no moat. Why would anyone listen to how they work internally?

Is it just me that wonders if everyone having "an army of Claudes" is an unsustainable token burn for anyone not affiliated with a Frontier Lab?

The issue with this kind of report is that you inevitably end up thinking "They would say that, would they".

There simply is no way to separate what’s reporting and what’s advertising.

One should keep in mind that whatever anthropic discovers there is a discovery made by a company with an infinite cash and hype faucet.

So while some stuff may transfer over as a general thing, a lot will probably not.

Still interesting, of course, but to be consumed with a mountain of salt.

am i the only one who read this and thought 'no shit.' obviously agent hours outnumber human hours? most people operate multiple agents and function as AI nannies now. big deal.

also 'lines of code' or any other output based metric in the age of infinite slop is not a flex/indicator of usefulness or value.

and yes, everyone spends all their time reading Claude output. that doesn't mean better work is getting done, or progress is being made. i've been reviewing and fixing claude slop at work for at least a year. if anything companies/products are getting more homogonized and bloated. thanks anthropic, you are going to save the world

how we will get next generation seniors, if no body hire juniors and freshers?

This just can't be sustainable. Ever increasing agent activity can only move to the point where it's literally impossible for humans to have a collective awareness of how the systems that support our lives actually work. How does anyone think this is going to end well? If as humans we loose control of vital systems, when they stop working one day (and they so easily could unless the agents are perfect and 100pct aligned with the general good of humanity (how do we even define that)) we could find ourselves without the ability to run healthcare systems and power grids, that have evolved so much such complexity that no human can intervene to fix them. I do believe that you can create feed back loops where probabilistic agents can be used to create deterministic checks and balances, and solve real problems for good. But it's a wild west at the moment and that is not what's happening in so many companies, and the solutions are not yet on the horizon. Even if the 'agents can handle it' ... where does that leave us? Unable to run our societies without puting everything through frontier LLMs? I just finished a very short story by Ted Chiang - 'The evolution of Human science' it starts at the point where it's 25 years since humans contributed a scientific paper because 'meta humans' now handle all research, and communicate digitally such that humans can only get a low fidelity report of what the agents actually know, and the endeavour to understand has become like a best effort archeological like hobby for interested humans. The story assumes that the 'meta humans' will always act in humans best interests. I believe it's from 2002, it's incredibly precient (The stories of your life and others is the collection the story is in. Many of them are very relevant to modern AI actually).

Wow, that sounds like an AI hellscape! Constant pressure to use AI agents to be more productive. That pressure requires an amount of attention that wears you out so quickly just to stay competitive that you need to build bespoke tools to orchestrate your agentic workflows. But the amount of output from that is too much too, so you need to build meta-orchestrators to orchestrate your orchestrators.

And all of this is then somehow classified as responsible development of AI, by people who claim AI could eradicate humanity, and that RSI will be our downfall. How exactly is outsourcing your work on agents to agents not RSI at this point? Why are these people still allowed to operate again?

> A financial manager built a purchase request review agent

> An executive assistant, who built a personal assistant agent for scheduling and email triage

Really? We should build our own agents for everything? Sounds a bit token-spendy.

Also, as far as I can make out, the paper was not written by AI (nor even with AI assistance?). You'd think they'd make a song and dance about it if it was. Maybe AI can't do this sort of thing yet (or ever).

Recently claude on vscode got blanked for whole day, Fixed after the update on next day

I'm surprised this is not much more talked about these days. The hiring bar is going to increase so much in the next few years (already happening), and together with more layoffs driven by big tech, things aren't looking good.

Anyhropic is not a good example for anything. Their scale and growth is way beyond what like 99% of companies experiece. Their optimization formula is different.

They're celebrating elimination of junior work while offering no explanation for how future senior staff are trained, and measuring output by code volume. Lol who wrote this, can't wait to see how this plays out, if you asked even a junior they could have told you that's a terrible idea.

It really is the most misanthropic company, isn't it? But strategically is all this fearmongering about SWEs becoming obsolete even the right move for Anthropic?

Say that it is borderline true (it's not, but let's pretend). Then companies can lay off 90 devs for every 100, and buy the remaining 10 devs Claude subscriptions. Isn't it better if they keep all 100 and buy everyone a Claude sub?

So shouldn't Anthropic actually be pushing the narrative that Claude doesn't replace devs but actually makes them vastly better at their jobs and so every company, big and small, should buy every dev the highest tier Claude enterprise subscription?

Said by a company that’s increasingly desperate to convince you that there’s serious business value in using their product. The challenge is those without that conflict of interests don’t seem to agree there’s a lot of ROI.

In other news, Turkey farmers encourage you to buy more turkey for Thanksgiving.

Authors of this article: Nathan Wilmers, Regina Catipon, Maxim Massenkoff, Peter McCrory

I'm too lazy to bother looking up each of their credentials. Are any of them software engineers? Do they know anything about creating, maintaining, and evolving software?

I do know that Anthropic's CEO isn't a software engineer, so it would be hard for him to evaluate their claims with any deep insight from experience.