“Perhaps I also no longer need to warn people that the idea that coding would disappear soon is bullshit.”
Our reading, the sentence that was checked:
Human coding will not disappear soon due to AI.
Assessment: Unresolved No deadline stated on 2026-10-29 Evidence as of
Where and when Gary Marcus wrote it
Marcus on AI, The bad news: AI is going pretty much as I expected, paragraph 4.
- Said
- Source observed
- live page, full text, public
- Evidence as of
- the cutoff for this assessment
- Assessment recorded
- assessment marcus-the-bad-news-ai-is-going-pretty-much-ef86d1-a1
We recorded 7 claims from this post. See every claim from this post.
The wording above is the version this site observed on 2026-10-28. The source may have been edited after 2025-09-05. This page does not claim the wording was captured then.
What the claim commits to
- Kind
- Forecast
- Deadline, as the speaker wrote it
- “soon”
- Deadline state when assessed
- No deadline stated
- Deadline state on 2026-10-29
- No deadline stated (the release’s reference date)
From the speaker
- coding would disappear soon
- is bullshit
- this prediction from Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei back in March
Our interpretation
- The plain reading is that substantial human code writing will continue in the near term despite AI automation.
- Disappearance concerns human code writing across software development, not merely a high AI-generated share at selected companies.
- The referenced March forecast provides context, but Marcus does not explicitly adopt either its six-month or twelve-month endpoint.
- Soon supplies no latest defensible calendar day. I therefore leave the horizon open rather than silently imposing October 2026 or a one-year deadline.
Counts as supported if: Evidence that substantial human code writing persists through an endpoint established for soon. Without that endpoint, continued coding supports persistence but cannot conclusively close the forecast.
Counts as contradicted if: Broad evidence that AI has eliminated substantial human code writing within an interval clearly covered by the claim's near-term language.
Retrospective: these criteria were written after the outcome was public.
Current assessment
Did the forecast come true?
Outcome: Unresolved
The record was checked, and the evidence available by the cutoff does not settle it.
Scored on a plain reading. The speaker named no measure for this claim, so it was judged on the reading an informed reader would take, stated below under our interpretation. Both reviews had to find that reading fair.
- Evidence as of
- Deadline state when assessed
- No deadline stated
- Assessment recorded
- Policy version
- 2026-10-28.7
Rationale
The evidence favors continued human coding: Sonar's October 2025 respondents reported a 42% AI-generated or assisted share, and the 2026 Stack Overflow survey still included developers using no AI tools. These records also show substantial automation. No decisive disappearance event was found. However, Marcus supplied no fixed endpoint for soon, and the referenced prediction contains two horizons. A conclusive supported verdict would require choosing a deadline he did not clearly supply.
Limitations
- This leaves the forecast open because of its timing, not because the evidence shows human coding disappeared.
- Survey responses are self-reported and do not measure all code production.
- AI-assisted code can still involve substantial human writing.
Evidence (4 items)
Context only: ITPro,
essentially all of the code
Why it matters here: The referenced prediction included a twelve-month possibility as well as a three-to-six-month forecast about 90% of code. This explains the context but does not establish which endpoint Marcus committed to.
- Publisher
- ITPro
- Kind of source
- News report
- Describes events of
- Public from
Context only: Sonar,
42% of the code
Why it matters here: The reported share is consistent with substantial continuing human coding shortly after Marcus's post. It combines AI assistance with generation and is a survey estimate, not a census of code authorship.
- Publisher
- Sonar
- Kind of source
- Independent measurement
- Describes events of
- Public from
Context only: Sonar,
October 2025
Why it matters here: The report dates the observations to October 2025 despite its 2026 title. Its 1,149 respondents were employed or self-employed technology workers who had used AI at work within the preceding year.
- Publisher
- Sonar
- Kind of source
- Independent measurement
- Describes events of
- Public from
Context only: Stack Overflow,
do not use AI tools
Why it matters here: The 2026 survey still describes a substantial developer community, including respondents using no AI tools. It is consistent with persistence, but does not directly measure the worldwide share of code written by humans.
- Publisher
- Stack Overflow
- Kind of source
- Independent measurement
- Describes events of
- Public from
What would settle it
Clarification of the intended endpoint for soon, followed by representative evidence of human code writing through that endpoint. A clearly near-term, independently documented disappearance caused by AI could instead contradict the claim.
Where it was said (1)
Said once in the sources this register covers.
: Marcus on AI, The bad news: AI is going pretty much as I expected
Perhaps I also no longer need to warn people that the idea that coding would disappear soon is bullshit.
- Where
- paragraph 4
- Published
- 2025-09-05
- Source observed
- , live page
- Access
- full text, public
History
Assessment versions
- Assessment marcus-the-bad-news-ai-is-going-pretty-much-ef86d1-a1: Current. Outcome: Unresolved. Evidence as of 2026-10-28. Public date not recorded.
Recorded events
Assessment publishedBy this site
First assessment published after both reviews and the final-text check passed.
About assessment marcus-the-bad-news-ai-is-going-pretty-much-ef86d1-a1.