Every computer science student is asking some version of this question right now, usually late at night after reading a thread that made it sound like the answer is already yes. It is worth answering properly rather than with a slogan in either direction.
Here is the honest version, worked through from how the work actually changes rather than from a headline number.
What juniors were actually hired to do
Look at what an entry-level developer role has traditionally involved: small, well-defined tickets, boilerplate that follows an existing pattern, fixing a bug someone else already diagnosed, writing the tenth version of a form that looks like the ninth. It was useful work, and it was also the safest place to let someone new make mistakes, because the blast radius was small and a senior could check it quickly.
That is precisely the category of task an AI coding agent is good at. Give it a small, well-defined ticket and a codebase to work in, and it will produce a first pass fast, often faster than a new graduate would, because it has effectively seen a huge amount of code that looks similar. The overlap between "what juniors used to be hired for" and "what agents now do reasonably well" is not a coincidence. It is the same category of task, described two different ways.
The part that has not gone anywhere
Here is what an agent still cannot do on its own: decide which ticket is worth doing, write a specification precise enough that the output is actually useful, notice when the output is subtly wrong in a way the tests do not catch, and be the person whose name is on the change when it ships. Someone still has to specify the work, review it properly, and carry the responsibility for it. That someone does not stop being needed just because the typing got faster.
Companies also still need a pipeline of people who can eventually become senior engineers, and nobody becomes senior by skipping the years where they learn to read code critically. An organisation that stops hiring juniors entirely is quietly borrowing against its own future, and most engineering leaders know it even when short-term budgets tempt them otherwise.
The junior job is not disappearing. The bar for what counts as junior-level judgement is moving up.
What actually shifts
Put those two things together and the honest read is not "juniors are replaced." It is that the job is changing shape. The version of "junior developer" that meant mostly writing code from a spec someone else already fully worked out is shrinking, because that step is now often done first by an agent. The version that means specifying tasks clearly, reviewing an agent's output with real scrutiny, catching what it got wrong, and taking ownership of the result, that version is not shrinking. It is becoming the actual entry point.
This means entry-level hiring increasingly rewards something that used to be a mid-career skill: demonstrable judgement. Not "I can write a for loop", which was never really in question, but "I can look at a change, including one I did not write myself, and tell you whether it is correct, safe, and worth shipping." That is a harder thing to prove on a CV than a list of programming languages, and it is exactly the gap a lot of graduates are stuck in right now: they can write code, but they have never had to prove they can audit someone else's, or an agent's.
How to actually demonstrate it
The fix is not a longer skills section. It is doing the thing and being able to point at it. The Legacy Fix is built for exactly this: it puts you in the seat of reviewing and directing an agent's work on a real repository, then scores the judgement, not just the output. It ends with a certificate a recruiter can actually check by link, which is a different kind of proof than a claim on a CV.
If you want the wider picture on how hiring is shifting around this, proof of skills is already beating the CV in a lot of hiring decisions, and it is worth reading where the German job market is actually heading in 2026 before you assume the entry-level door is closing rather than moving.
Go do a project where an agent's output is part of the brief, and see for yourself what you catch and what you miss. That is a more useful data point than another thread arguing about it.
