By the looks of it, 2026 might be the year where reality and fiction will finally collide with AI and we'll be able to see if all the hype was warranted. But like all the previous hype, most of the people that were the loudest won't say they were wrong, and they'll move to the next thing, pretending like they never were the one that portrayed AI as the holy Graal.
> most of the people that were the loudest won't say they were wrong I was so expecting to find this wind-up aimed at those peddling the "AI is hype" laziness. It's laziness because they have little CS fundamentals to base such claims on, and the deductions can be made, just not clearly to people who need to study a lot more. It's like watching an invisible train (visible to those with strong CS) rolling down the tra…
So, what CS fundamentals do you need to evaluate if AI is the real thing, or will disappoint in the future? Until a few months ago, coding agents were met with skepticism, until Anthropic introduced their new model and, with it, a hype train that cannot be rationally justified. Look, SOTA LLMs, and coding agents in particular, are impressive. However, current predictions about the future of software development (and the world in general) are speculative. There is little to no data showing whether AI can deliver on its promises. How could there be in this short time frame? No one knows what the future will hold, no one knows how coding agents will be integrated into our work life and everyday life in the long run, or what hard limitations they will reveal. No one can tell you how professions will change in the coming years; every prediction is purely speculative, and anyone making prophecies is either trying to cope with the uncertainty themselves or has some stakes in the AI bet. It would be nice if people were actually humble enough to admit that they have no idea what will happen in the future, instead of writing the hundredth doom and gloom post.