Elon Says Coding Is Dead.

Elon Says Coding Is Dead. His Own AI Company Just Lost Half Its Co-Founders. Here’s What 9 Years in Engineering Actually Tells You.

@r0ck3t23 shared Musk’s “coding dies this year” prediction. @RoundtableSpace posted an Epstein dataviz app built in hours. Meanwhile, xAI lost 6 of 12 co-founders this week. The reality of AI + engineering is more complicated — and more interesting — than any hot take.

There are two posts on X right now that, placed side by side, tell you everything about the actual state of AI and software engineering in 2026.

The first: @r0ck3t23 (Dustin) shared Elon Musk’s prediction that AI will bypass coding entirely by the end of 2026 — “just creates the binary directly. AI can create a much more efficient binary than can be done by any compiler.” Musk has been escalating this thesis since August 2025, when he told his 200+ million followers: “There will be no code writing in the future.”

The second: @RoundtableSpace posted an interactive Epstein files dataviz app — a force-directed relationship graph built from public documents — apparently vibe-coded on Replit in a matter of hours. Real data, real product, shipped to production fast.

Now here’s the punchline neither post provides: the same week Musk predicted coding’s death, his own AI company xAI lost 6 of its 12 original co-founders. Tony Wu (reasoning lead) resigned on February 9. Jimmy Ba (research and safety lead) left on February 10. At least 9 engineers publicly announced departures in one week. Bloomberg reported Musk restructured xAI into four divisions — one of which is literally called “Coding.”

Let me say that again: Elon Musk says coding is dead, and simultaneously created a dedicated “Coding” division at his AI company because he doesn’t have enough engineers to build the thing he claims will kill coding.

I’ve been building software for 9+ years and working in Web3/crypto for 5. Here’s what I actually think is happening.

What Musk Gets Right

He’s directionally correct about one thing: the barrier to entry for creating software has dropped dramatically. AI coding assistants — Claude Code, Grok 4, GitHub Copilot, and Cursor — have genuinely changed the speed at which functional code can be generated.

The Epstein dataviz app posted by @RoundtableSpace is proof. Someone took public documents, built a force-directed graph with interactive exploration, and deployed it. Probably in hours. Five years ago, that was a weekend project for an experienced developer. Now it’s an afternoon for someone who understands what they want to build and can direct an AI to build it.

Claude Opus 4.5, released two months ago, topped the LiveBench benchmark for LLMs, surpassing GPT-5.1 Codex MAX and Gemini 3 Pro. AI coding capabilities are at a level where routine, pattern-based development—CRUD scaffolds, API wrappers, component generation, test writing—can be substantially automated.

Musk is right that future developers will write less code. He’s wrong that this means coding is dead.

What Musk Gets Wrong

Here’s where the “coding dies” prediction falls apart, from someone who actually ships production systems:

1. AI can’t replace what it can’t see. The Epstein dataviz app is impressive. But it’s a data visualization — a well-defined problem with a well-defined output. Building financial infrastructure that handles billions in daily volume, maintains sub-millisecond execution during liquidation cascades, and never loses customer funds? That requires an understanding of distributed systems, security architecture, and failure modes that AI coding tools cannot currently handle autonomously. When Bitunix processed $5B+ in daily volume during the Feb 5 crash while other exchanges returned 504 errors, that wasn’t because they used better AI tools. It was because experienced engineers designed systems that could handle -6.05σ events.

2. Vibe coding without engineering fundamentals = fragile products. @RoundtableSpace’s Epstein dataviz works great as a demo. But scale it to millions of concurrent users, add authentication, secure the data pipeline, handle edge cases, and maintain it for 5 years — suddenly you need the engineering that “vibe coding” can’t provide. As the 36kr article on AI coding put it: “Few companies and teams would dare to let AI take over the code development of an existing complex system.”

3. xAI’s own talent crisis proves the point. If coding were truly dying, xAI wouldn’t need to create a dedicated “Coding” division (Bloomberg, Feb 11). They wouldn’t have lost Tony Wu and Jimmy Ba — two co-founders who built Grok’s reasoning and safety systems. They wouldn’t be hiring a “technical lead” to build X Money’s payments infrastructure from scratch. The same week Musk says coding is dead, his companies are desperately looking for people who can code.

4. The “binary directly” claim is technically incoherent. Musk said AI will “bypass coding entirely” and “create optimized binary” for specific chips. This betrays a fundamental misunderstanding. Compilers don’t just translate — they handle architecture-specific optimization, memory management, type safety, linking, and a hundred other concerns that raw binary generation would need to replicate. Going straight to binary isn’t simpler. It’s exponentially more complex. It’s like saying, “We’ll skip building materials and just directly create buildings.”

What’s Actually Happening: The Recomposition

The reality is more nuanced and more interesting than “coding dies.”

Engineering isn’t being eliminated. It’s being recomposed. The value chain is shifting from “writing code” to “directing systems.” As abZ Global’s analysis put it: “The winners aren’t the fastest typists; they’re the best problem framers, system designers, and outcome owners.”

In my daily work across Web3 and crypto, this looks like:

Before AI: I spent 3 hours implementing a React component, writing tests, and debugging edge cases. With AI: I spend 30 minutes specifying what I want, reviewing AI output, fixing architectural issues, and ensuring security patterns are correct.

The time savings are real. But the work didn’t disappear — it moved upstream. The specification, architecture, security review, and system integration now take more of my time, not less. And those skills are harder to automate than the code writing itself.

xAI co-founder Tony Wu said it in his resignation post: “It is an era with full possibilities: a small team armed with AIs can move mountains and redefine what’s possible.” Note what he’s saying: small TEAM. Armed WITH AI. Not replaced BY AI.

The Web3 Angle Nobody’s Connecting

This recomposition is especially visible in crypto and Web3 infrastructure.

Consider what happened in the past two weeks: Fidelity launched FIDD stablecoin on Ethereum. Tether released MiningOS. @elonmusk confirmed X Money external beta in 1–2 months (@MarioNawfal covered it). European banks onboarded crypto under MiCA. The GENIUS Act framework is being implemented.

Each of these products required human engineers who understood distributed systems, cryptographic security, regulatory compliance, and financial infrastructure. AI assists. AI accelerates. AI does not independently design a stablecoin issuance system that holds $59M in reserves at the Bank of New York Mellon, compliant with OCC requirements.

During the February 5 crash — $2.65B in liquidations, Fear & Greed at 5 — the exchanges that stayed operational did so because of engineering decisions made months or years earlier about system architecture, redundancy, and stress testing. Those aren’t decisions an AI coding tool makes.

I trade on Bitunix through this volatility specifically because their engineering shows. Top 10 on CoinGlass for open interest, $5B+ daily volume, sub-millisecond execution that held during a -6.05σ event, on-chain Proof of Reserves, 30M USDC Care Fund. That’s engineering. Not vibe coding.

The platforms that survived aren’t the ones that replaced engineers with AI. They’re the ones where engineers used AI to build better systems.

Code BITUNIXBONUS: 7,700 USDT bonus, 77.7% fee discount, instant VIP 2.

→ Register on Bitunix with BITUNIXBONUS

Already VIP on Binance/OKX/Bitget? Get VIP+1 on Bitunix

The Honest Prediction

In 5 years, the number of people who can create functional software will 10x. The number of people who can design, secure, scale, and maintain production systems will stay roughly the same. The barrier drops for creation. The bar rises for quality.

Coding isn’t dead. Bad coding is dead. Routine coding is dead. The engineering that builds infrastructure capable of handling $5B in daily volume during a market crash — that’s more valuable than ever.

Musk should spend less time predicting the death of coding and more time preventing his engineers from leaving. Six co-founders down. The irony writes itself.

Disclaimer: This is not financial advice. Views on technology are my own, based on professional experience.

Follow me: bintangtobing.com/links