I enjoyed reading theses perspectives, they are reasoned and insightful.

I'm undecided about my stance for gen AI in code. We can't just look at the first order and immediate effects, but also at the social, architectural, power and responsibility aspects.

For another area, prose, literature, emails, I am firm in my rejection of gen AI.
I read to connect with other humans, the price of admission is spending the time.

For code, I am not as certain, nowadays I don't regularly see it as an artwork or human expression, it is a technical artifact where craftsmanship can be visible.

Will gen AI be the equivalent of a compiler and in 20 years everyone depends on their proprietary compiler/IDE company?

Can it even advance beyond patterns/approaches that we have built until then?

I have many more questions and few answers and both embracing and rejecting feels foolish.

> Hopefully it continues to get commoditized to the point where no monopoly can get a stranglehold on it

I believe this is the natural end-state for LLM based AI but the danger of these companies even briefly being worth trillions of dollars is that they are likely to start caring about (and throwing lobbying money around) AI-related intellectual property concerns that they've never shown to anyone else while building their models and I don't think it is far fetched to assume they will attempt all manner of underhanded regulatory capture in the window prior to when commoditization would otherwise occur naturally.

All three of OpenAI, Google and Anthropic have already complained about their LLMs being ripped off.

https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2026-02-13/openai-acc...

https://cloud.google.com/blog/topics/threat-intelligence/dis...

https://fortune.com/2026/02/24/anthropic-china-deepseek-thef...