First, I don't like the implication there that AI is "thinking". It doesn't equate.

Second, while they might get better, they're not as good as the author claims, and his evidence is anecdotal at best. I can give anecdotal evidence as well: we just let go of a trial hire because their code quality was so bad (turns out they used AI). Another one of my coworkers sometimes uses AI to write nix for my work projects and it's always needlessly verbose, and it also sometimes leads to actually useless code that's already implemented better in a module that we use; also when asked if my modules are correct, the AI says they're not, while they actually are (just not structured like most modules you find). In most cases, usage of AI has increased the workload for others. And these are examples from 2026 mind you.

I already mentally skip AI summaries because chances are they're wrong; obviously, this is true for everything, but it's been painfully ridiculous with AI. An example from my life, I used Google to search for "is train X on time", with one of the first results being a third party site tracking all delays for that line and correctly showing that it was delayed by an hour. Meanwhile, the AI assured me it was on time. Now you might say "of course, it can't reflect such recent events" (which then wouldn't be agentic, but whatever...), but then why present me with the factually wrong information in the first place?

We'll see how all this turns out.