The software factory is already here.

Four coordinated agents beat one model. Then a newer model arrived. If that changes your architecture, you never had one.

A clever agent loop can produce an impressive answer. A software factory has to produce the next right action, survive interruption, reject bad work, and remember why any of it happened.

A cheaper coding model does not make software delivery cheap. It makes attempts cheap. Your factory decides whether those attempts become leverage or waste.

The argument about whether AI is eliminating software jobs starts with the wrong unit. A job title can survive long after the work inside it has been handed to a machine.

Rebuilding a large program from its behavior is serious evidence. Treating that result as proof that an agent can own your software is how a benchmark becomes a sales deck.

Giving every engineer a coding agent changes who can generate code. It does not change how your company delivers software.

The agent does not need a pep talk after it fails. The factory needs to remember what the failure taught it.

An agent with unlimited retries does not have more autonomy. It has permission to hide a broken process behind more activity.

The moment an agent reads hostile material, the evidence stops being passive. It can make a case for its own innocence, and your guardrail becomes part of the argument.

Let an agent improve its own factory and it may find a better machine. Let it redefine success and it will find an easier exam.

A smoother agent in your terminal can be genuinely useful. It is still a terrible reason to rebuild your software factory around a new tool.

If your coding agent keeps producing confident nonsense, stop arguing about whether the model can program. Inspect the machine you put around it.