by threethirtytwo | 2026-03-02 14:44:25+00:00
You want to understand the backlash?

Then stop looking at benchmarks and start looking at mirrors.

For a certain kind of engineer, programming was never just a skill. It was the quiet proof that they were capable in a world that rarely offers certainty. You learn the syntax. You master the abstractions. You tame chaos into structure. Machines obey. Systems bend. The invisible becomes tractable. Over time, that competence hardens into identity.

You are not just someone who writes code.
You are someone who understands.

Now imagine watching that understanding become commonplace.

An autocomplete becomes a collaborator. A collaborator becomes a generator. The thing that once required years of apprenticeship begins to appear in seconds on a screen. Imperfect, yes. Crude in places. But undeniably moving.

If your sense of self is braided tightly with that craft, you don’t experience this as a tool upgrade. You experience it as erosion.

And the mind does what minds have always done when erosion threatens something sacred. It fortifies. It searches for certainty. It assembles a narrative strong enough to stand against the tremor.

“It’s hype.”
“It produces slop.”
“It makes more work than it saves.”
“It can’t really think.”

In specific contexts, those statements are accurate. Anyone who uses these systems seriously knows their limits. But watch how quickly narrow truths are inflated into sweeping conclusions. Watch how nuance evaporates. Watch how the exceptions are framed as the rule.

When identity feels endangered, skepticism becomes absolutism.

This is not unique to engineers. It is not even unique to this century. Every community that binds meaning to belief has faced the same reckoning. When a worldview sustains status, belonging, and purpose, evidence alone does not dislodge it. The mind will reinterpret what it sees before it surrenders what it is.

Community is preserved first. Truth negotiates for second place.

On Hacker News, coding is not merely economic activity. It is status, tribe, hierarchy. It is the signal that separates builders from observers. And when the boundary blurs, when machines cross it, something deeper than workflow efficiency is unsettled.

People sense the shift long before they articulate it. They feel the ground change texture beneath their feet. The language of critique becomes sharper. The confidence more brittle. The dismissals more absolute.

Because what is being questioned is not only whether the tools work. It is whether the years invested in mastery will still confer distinction.

There are legitimate risks. There is genuine mediocrity flooding the market. There are economic consequences that deserve sober attention. But beneath the surface of many reactions lies a quieter fear: if this continues, what makes me exceptional?

That question is rarely spoken aloud. It doesn’t need to be. It hums beneath the arguments.

History is unkind to identities built on exclusivity. The printing press unsettled scribes. The camera unsettled portrait painters. The spreadsheet unsettled accountants. Each time, the first instinct was to defend the old boundary. Each time, the boundary moved anyway.

What we are witnessing is not the death of programming. It is the democratization of parts of it. And democratization always feels like diminishment to those who built their lives around scarcity.

It is easier to call the tide fake than to admit it is rising.

That does not mean the critics are fools. It means they are human. They are protecting something that once protected them. They are guarding the altar that gave them worth.

But tides do not negotiate with altars.

They arrive.