Not OP, and I don't have specific stake in any AI companies, but IMHO (as someone doing web-related things for a living (as a developer, team lead, "architect", product manager, consultant, and manager) since 1998, I think we pretty much all of us have skin in the game, whether or not we back a particular horse.
If you believe that agents will replace software developers like me in the near term, then you’d think I have a horse in this race.
But I don’t believe that.
My company pays for Cursor and so do I, and I’m using it with all the latest models. For my main job, writing code in a vast codebase with internal frameworks everywhere, it’s reasonably useless.
For much smaller codebases it’s much better, and it’s excellent for greenfield work.
But greenfield work isn’t where most of the money and time is spent.
There’s an assumption the tools will get much better. There are several ways they could be better (e.g. plugging into typecheckers to enable global reasoning about a codebase) but even then they’re not in replacement territory.
I listen to people like Yann LeCun and Demis Hassabis who believe further as-yet-unknown innovations are needed before we can escape a local maxima that we have with LLMs.
