I think AI is just allowing everyone to speed-run the innovator's dilemma. Anyone can create a small version of anything, while big orgs will struggle to move quickly as before.
The interesting bit is going to be whether we see AI being used in maturing those small systems into big complex ones that account for the edge cases, meet all the requirements, scale as needed, etc. That's hard for humans to do, and particularly while still moving. I've not see any of this from AI yet outside of either a) very directed small changes to large complex systems, or b) plugins/extensions/etc along a well define set of rails.
"I could make that in a weekend"
"The first 80% of a project takes 80% of the time, the remaining 20% takes the other 80% of the time"
That is a good point and true to some extent. But IME with AI, both the initial speedup and the eventual slowdown are accelerated vs. a human.
I've been thinking that one reason is that while AI coding generates code far faster (on a greenfield project I estimate about 50x), it also generates tech-debt at a hyperastonishing rate.
It used to be that tech debt started to catch up with teams in a few years, but with AI coded software it's only a few months into it that tech debt is so massive that it is slowing progress down.
I also find that I can keep the tech debt in check by using the bot only as a junior engineer, where I specify precisely the architecture and the design down to object and function definitions and I only let the bot write individual functions at a time.
That is much slower, but also much more sustainable. I'd estimate my productivity gains are "only" 2x to 3x (instead of ~50x) but tech debt accumulates no faster than a purely human-coded project.
This is based on various projects only about one year into it, so time will tell how it evolves longer term.
It looked really good, but as I got into the details the weirdness really started coming out. There's huge functions which interleave many concepts, and there's database queries everywhere. Huge amounts of duplication. It makes it very hard to change anything without breaking something else.
You can of course focus on getting the AI to simplify and condense. But that requires a good understanding of the codebase. Definitely no longer vibe-coded.
My enthusiasm for the technology has really gone in a wave. From "WOW" when it churned out 10k lines of credible looking code, to "Ohhhh" when I started getting into the weeds of the implementation and realising just how much of a mess it was. It's clearly very powerful for quick and dirty prototypes (and it seems to be particularly good at building decent CRUD frontends), but in software and user interaction the devil is in the details. And the details are a mess.
I qualify that because hey, someone comes back and reads this 5 years later, I have no idea what you will be facing then. But at the moment this is still true.
The problem is, people see the AIs coding, I dunno, what, a 100 times faster minimum in terms of churning out lines? And it just blows out their mental estimation models and they substitute an "infinity" for the capability of the models, either today or in the future. But they are not infinitely capable. They are finitely capable. As such they will still face many of the same challenges humans do... no matter how good they get in the future. Getting better will move the threshold but it can never remove it.
There is no model coming that will be able to consume an arbitrarily large amount of code goop and integrate with it instantly. That's not a limitation of Artificial Intelligences, that's a limitation of finite intelligences. A model that makes what we humans would call subjectively better code is going to produce a code base that can do more and go farther than a model that just hyper-focuses on the short-term and slops something out that works today. That's a continuum, not a binary, so there will always be room for a better model that makes better code. We will never overwhelm bad code with infinite intelligence because we can't have the latter.
Today, in 2026, providing the guidance for better code is a human role. I'm not promising it will be forever, but it is today. If you're not doing that, you will pay the price of a bad code base. I say that without emotion, just as "tech debt" is not always necessarily bad. It's just a tradeoff you need to decide about, but I guarantee a lot of people are making poor ones today without realizing it, and will be paying for it for years to come no matter how good the future AIs may be. (If the rumors and guesses are true that Windows is nearly in collapse from AI code... how much larger an object lesson do you need? If that is their problem they're probably in even bigger trouble than they realize.)
I also don't guarantee that "good code for humans" and "good code for AIs" will remain as aligned as they are now, though it is my opinion we ought to strive for that to be the case. It hasn't been talked about as much lately, but it's still good for us to be able to figure out why a system did what it did and even if it costs us some percentage of efficiency, having the AIs write human-legible code into the indefinite future is probably still a valuable thing to do so we can examine things if necessary. (Personally I suspect that while there will be some efficiency gain for letting the AIs make their own programming languages that I doubt it'll ever be more than some more-or-less fixed percentage gain rather than some step-change in capability that we're missing out on... and if it is, maybe we should miss out on that step-change. As the moltbots prove that whatever fiction we may have told ourselves about keeping AIs in boxes is total garbage in a world where people will proactively let AIs out of the box for entertainment purposes.)