Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

Marc Andreessen (the guy who called it when “software ate the world”) just pointed out what AI is doing to coding next. “Everyone assumes AI coding means fewer hours… or leaving the profession. But almost everyone I know is working more hours.” “There’s a new term in the Valley:...

59,603 views • 3 days ago •via X (Twitter)

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

Marc Andreessen: AI coding doesn’t eliminate programmers — it redefines them. The job is no longer typing code line by line, it’s orchestrating 10 coding bots in parallel, arguing with them, debugging their output, changing the spec, and pushing them toward the right result. But here’s the catch: if you don’t understand how to write code yourself, you can’t evaluate what the AI gives you. The next layer of programming isn’t writing scripts — it’s supervising AI that writes them. Today’s best programmers spend their day jumping between terminals, managing multiple coding bots, fixing mistakes, and refining instructions. The irony? You still need deep fundamentals, because without them, you won’t know when the AI is wrong. The job of the programmer has changed. Now it’s about arguing with coding bots, debugging AI-generated code, and understanding why something doesn’t work or isn’t fast enough. AI abstracts the work — but only people who truly understand code can tell if the abstraction is doing the right thing. Programmers aren’t going away — they’re becoming 10x, 100x, even 1,000x more productive. Tasks are changing, the job is changing, but humans are still overseeing the process, evaluating results, fixing errors, and making judgment calls. AI changes how we code, not who is responsible. The future programmer isn’t replaced by AI — they’re upgraded by it. You still need to learn how to write and understand code, because when the AI gets it wrong, humans are the ones who have to know why. That up-leveling of capability is the real revolution.

Ian Miles Cheong

912,784 views • 5 months ago

Marc Andreessen says the best engineers alive stopped sleeping on purpose, and every one of them calls it the happiest they’ve ever been. Andreessen: “You’re up all night doing AI coding because you’re getting so much done that you can’t turn off. The opportunity cost of going to sleep is too high.” The body has one price it never negotiates. An hour of this just cleared it. They call them AI vampires now. Twenty agents working the night shift, and one human who refuses to be the bottleneck in his own life. Andreessen: “They’re sleep deprived, they’ve got bags under their eyes, they’re clearly not taking care of themselves. And they’re absolutely ecstatic.” Burnout is exhaustion in the absence of meaning. This is the reverse. Exhaustion from an oversupply. It was supposed to make us obsolete. It made us insatiable. We have only ever met desire in a cage. Uncaged, we call it sickness. Wanting more than you could reach was a wound with no treatment, so we made a virtue of not wanting. Moderation. Contentment. Being realistic. Knowing your limits. Handed down as wisdom. All of it anesthesia for a species that could not afford its own ideas. Underneath the vampires sits a quieter story that does far more damage. A friend on Wall Street. MIT computer science degree, thirty five years ago. Then the market bid higher for his hours, and he put it down for three decades. Andreessen: “He’s picked up coding with AI. He’s completely re-automated his entire house.” Nothing was resurrected. Nothing had ever died. Andreessen: “…in his spare time has generated 500,000 lines of code, just by working with AI.” He never lacked the vision. He lacked the hours. Three decades of wanting with nowhere to put it. Desire doesn’t die when you starve it. It goes quiet, and you start describing it in the past tense. Andreessen: “The coders that are using AI, the estimate is right now that they’re 20 times more productive than they were before they started using AI.” Not twenty percent. Twenty times. He draws the pessimistic case from it himself. Andreessen: “If there’s only a limited amount of software that people want in the world, then yeah, you’re going to get mass unemployment.” One clause in that sentence holds up the entire automation debate. A limited amount that people want. Every number we have on human demand was taken inside a rationing regime. We measured the ideas that could clear a payroll. Everything beneath that line never existed long enough to be counted. The house that works the way you pictured it. The fix nobody else needs. The idea too small to fund and too personal to sell. We spent a century measuring the supply curve and filed the result under human nature. Nobody alive has ever seen what a person wants. Only what they could afford to want. You were never a person with limits. You were a person with prices. Scarcity was never only a constraint. It was an alibi. It let everyone believe the life they never lived was taken from them. I would have, but. There is no but anymore. The vampires aren’t up all night because the machine demands it. They’re up because the thing they always meant to make finally stopped being impossible. You have one too. You’ve just been describing it in the past tense. That was never a verdict on you. It was a price. The price went to zero.

Dustin

20,654 views • 6 days ago

Marc Andreessen explains why AI coding won't replace programmers, but fundamentally change what they do. He argues that AI coding is just the latest abstraction layer, and the job of a programmer has always evolved with each one. Andreessen's key reframe of what's actually happening: "AI coding actually abstracts away the process of actually writing the scripting code... This is the next layer of the task redefinition under the job of programmer." He's clear that the best programmers aren't being replaced. They're already adapting, even if their day-to-day looks radically different now. Their job has shifted from writing code line by line to managing dozens of AI agents working in parallel. "The world's best programmers today will tell you, 'My job is I'm sitting there and I'm orchestrating 10 code bots running in parallel.' Their day job now is kind of arguing with the AI bots to try to get them to write the right code." But Marc Andreessen 🇺🇸 is adamant this doesn't make foundational knowledge obsolete — it makes it more important. "You need to still fully understand and learn how to write and understand code, because if it doesn't work or it's not doing what you expect, you need to be able to understand the results of what the AI is giving you." He draws a direct parallel: Just as someone writing scripting languages still needs to understand how a microprocessor works, someone orchestrating AI bots needs to understand the code those bots produce. "It's this upleveling of capability where you actually want the depth to go down and understand what the thing is actually doing, even if you're not spending your day doing that by hand." The result, in his view, is transformative: "Now programmers are going to be 10 times or 100 times or a thousand times more productive. And that is overwhelmingly a good thing." The pattern: New abstraction layer emerges → tasks change → the job gets redefined upward → productivity explodes It raises a question every programmer should be sitting with... Are you building the depth to evaluate what AI gives you, or just accepting the output?

Big Brain AI

45,270 views • 5 months ago