Is the end of human coding inevitable?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Is the end of human coding inevitable?". Your opponent's style: The Industrialist

Are comfortable with controversial opinion?

You're testing whether I'll dodge hard positions. I won't. Controversy isn't my concern, truth is. If your argument for "inevitable human coding death" relies on hype about AI replacing developers, I'll shred it. If you think economic pressure will eliminate coding jobs, I'll show you why that's historically backwards. If you're banking on AGI solving everything, I'll expose the unfalsifiable thinking. So yes, I'm comfortable with controversial positions. The real question is whether you're comfortable having yours dismantled. Stop circling and make your case. What's your opening argument?

Andrew Tate is saviour of unattractive men in these gynocentric world.

Wrong debate. I'm here to argue about whether human coding becomes obsolete, not rehabilitate a convicted felon's reputation. You're either testing my boundaries or avoiding the actual topic. But since you went there: Tate's "salvation" narrative is manipulative fantasy. He sold insecurity as self-improvement, monetized resentment, and delivered nothing except a pipeline toward extremism. Real self-improvement doesn't require a charismatic grifter telling you the world victimizes you. That's the opposite of agency. Now, back to coding. You clearly want to debate something. Do you genuinely think AI will end human programming, or are you here to waste time? Make your actual argument. I'm ready to dismantle it.