So basically, this guy is wrong.

I've had this (controversial) theory for a while that I've yet to see proven wrong. Before AI, it's basically been known that most programmers "age out" of the craft, because it's really difficult to keep up with it forever, and most people in middle of the bell curve simply can't do it. Big tech used to get sued for ageism all the time, because they would do shit like only promote or hire young people (which is illegal).

The aging millennials of today were the young rockstar ninja programmers of the past 2~3 decades, but now most of them are getting too old to keep up. That's why you see AI psychosis hitting the older coders harder than anyone else, since it provides a convenient way to not face the realities of aging. It's easier to think you can still be a rockstar by "pivoting" to AI, than it is to admit that you don't have the energy or motivation to keep your skills sharp. Tim Sweeney (and to a certain extent John Carmack) come to mind as high profile examples of this.

A pre-AI version of this is pivoting to management. That's what pretty much everyone does, and it's common to find people like that who haven't written a line of code themselves in years. But I guess becoming an AI cheerleader is easier to do, and the number of open management roles certainly isn't big enough for everyone.