Can machine learning and AI make programmers obsolete? Can AI make software coding and debugging a thing of the past?

Last Updated: 03.07.2025 01:27

Can machine learning and AI make programmers obsolete? Can AI make software coding and debugging a thing of the past?

You can do modulus with %. In fact, it’s the standard way to do it! (See command 17). And mod is deprecated (command 18):

Here’s the proof :

And presto goes Claude, the clueless junior-dev (it also botched correctly showing //):

Show 1433: What Are the Hidden Dangers in the Air We Breathe? - The People's Pharmacy

And let’s use the latest, extra-capable model 4.1 from OpenAPI. The result:

Ah. Claude Claude Claude.

Let’s ask Claude Sonnet 3.5, which is quite the advanced model (at par with Deepseek V3 R1 and GPT 4o) a very simple question:

The players who will dominate MLB trade deadline rumors — and how likely it is they’ll be moved - New York Post

And hey Claude? There’s a reserved float division /. if both numbers are floats, for sure (19) but so can one use // even though both are integers (20):

And ever so dutifully, Claude reports:

Claude boy, how do I do division and modulus in OCaml?

Trump administration, for 1st time, returns wrongly deported migrant to US - ABC News

Re——-aaaaalllllly.

Your software developer job is safe for at least the next 100 years.

To the reader/asker:

What is the funniest husband-wife comedy team ever: Abbott & Costello, Martin & Lewis, Burns & Allen or something else entirely?

I don’t think so Claudeboy.

Let’s use the agent to see if it can search at least, when it doesn’t know?

As usual, I’ll make my point backed by verifiable examples.

My parents force me (15yo atheist) to go to church, and there’s this thing called Small Sundays where we discuss the Bible in groups, there are questions asked about the Bible. What am I supposed to do when they ask?

Now, let’s think about that for a second or two. Such an elementary matter and such egregious error of omission!

Agent, are you sure???? You’re lying again, aren’t you?