The text uses biased language to describe the work of software engineers as 'menial' and 'duller work'.

The text selectively reports on the history of coding and computing, focusing on instances where new technologies did not replace software engineers, while ignoring instances where they did.

The text misdirects the reader's attention by focusing on the history of coding and computing, rather than directly addressing the potential impact of generative AI on software engineers.

The text stereotypes software engineers as fearing replacement by generative AI and portrays them as having been under threat before.

The text repeats the idea that attempts to reduce the presence of developers or streamline their role only add complexity to the work and make them more necessary.

The text frames the use of generative AI as potentially eliminating the 'duller work' of coding and allowing developers to focus on building the architecture of their creations.

The text falsely equates the introduction of new complexity to computers with attempts to reduce the presence of developers or streamline their role.

The text references the computer scientist Edsger Dijkstra to support the argument that programming has become a more complex problem with the introduction of new technologies.

The text cherry-picks examples of new technologies that did not replace software engineers, while ignoring examples where they did.

The text appeals to the emotions of software engineers by acknowledging their fears of being replaced by generative AI and emphasizing their indispensability.