Yes. Not the binary, but the relevance. And not for the reason most people think. This isn't a feature comparison story. It's a story about what happens when we stop forcing AI to build software the way humans do, and start letting it work the way it actually thinks. For sixty years, software development has been shaped by the constraints of human cognition. We organize code into files because our brains navigate hierarchies. We use version control because we can't hold the full state of a system in our heads. We build local development environments because we need to see, touch, and run things to understand them. Terminals, IDEs, directory structures, git diffs — these aren't laws of nature. They're prosthetics for the human mind. We've now handed these prosthetics to an intelligence that doesn't need them and asked it to work the way we do. An AI agent doesn't think in files. It reasons about behavior, state, intent, and dependencies. When it produces a directory full of source code, that's a translation — from how it actually understands the problem into the format our legacy infrastructure expects to receive the answer. Every line of code an agent writes into your local filesystem is the agent putting on a human costume so the rest of your toolchain doesn't break. Claude Code is the highest expression of this compromise. It is a brilliant, carefully engineered tool that gives an AI agent hands-on access to the human development environment — the filesystem, the terminal, the git repo, the running process. It meets developers exactly where they are. And that's the problem. Meeting developers where they are means operating inside a paradigm built for human limitations. The more capable the agent becomes, the more absurd it is to constrain it to that paradigm. If AI agents are becoming the primary authors of software — and they are — then the question isn't how to keep humans in the loop of writing code. It's where humans actually add irreplaceable value. Two place