I don’t think it was meant that seriously. I read it as a humorous fiction written as if in the future, and I thought it was funny. Even speaking as a primate.
When someone so clearly misses an article written tongue in cheek and uses personal insults to let us know they missed the point, one begins to wonder. Apes code together. Apes stronger together. Return to monke.
I think the author very purposefully had no judgment or implications associated there. I think that is the reader's interpretation. The author was purposefully creating a division between AI and Non AI and showing what those two are like. But if you read carefully that division had no implied judgment. So it is interesting if the reader implies a particular judgment isn't it?
If you read carefully one of the groups is associated to apes.
And it's said to have been "unable to program with agents" and be affected by "limitations in human neuroplasticity".
And there's an implied judgment that AIs are going to become that good, and a suggestion that they already are good enough to take over coding, if you use them properly ("institutional inertia, affordability (...) were barriers to universal adoption of the new technology", "Effective use of the primitive AIs available at the time demanded a high level of expertise", "speculation on whether the nascent AIs of the period possessed true understanding", "Technical arguments for ape coding did not apply to newer generations of AI software engineers").
Was that (before the last sentence) what an LLM thought about my comment, by the way??
