In a SHOCKING, ABSOLUTELY SHOCKING, SHOCKING PRO MAX move that absolutely no one saw coming, Google has launched yet another AI coding assistant, bringing the total number of available AI coding tools to approximately one-hundred thousand, or roughly hundred AI coding assistants for every human software programmer on Earth. Named “Jules,” this latest addition to the AI coding pantheon promises to revolutionize software development by doing exactly what every other AI coding assistant already does, but with a name that sounds like it’s about to offer you a glass of chardonnay and strong opinions about the latest Oprah Book Club selection.
The Astonishing Innovation of Adding a Definite Article
Google’s product announcement carefully distinguishes Jules from the unwashed masses of coding AIs by referring to it as an “asynchronous coding agent” rather than a mere “ai coding assistant,” a distinction that industry experts have clarified means “exactly the same thing but with a salary that justifies a mortgage in Palo Alto.”
“Jules isn’t just any AI coding tool,” explained Dr. Samantha Nomenclature, Google’s Chief Anthropomorphization Officer. “It’s specifically designed to handle coding tasks you don’t want to do, which—after extensive user research costing $14 million—we’ve determined is approximately 99.7% of all coding tasks.”
When pressed on what makes Jules different from GitHub Copilot, Amazon CodeWhisperer, OpenAI’s Codex, Anthropic’s Claude, or the seventeen other coding AIs that launched while you were reading this sentence, Dr. Nomenclature clarified: “Jules is the only AI coding agent with a name that sounds like it vacations in the Hamptons in the US or Monaco. All those other tools have names that sound like rejected pharmaceuticals or IKEA furniture.”
The Science of Terrible AI Product Names: A Linguistic Analysis
The naming of Jules continues the proud tradition of AI products being named through what appears to be a rigorous process of tech executives throwing darts at a board containing the names of their children’s pets, minor Greek deities, and characters from canceled Netflix shows.
“We’ve identified several key strategies in AI naming conventions,” explained Dr. Lexicon Arbitrarium, professor of Computational Linguistics at Stanford. “There’s the ‘Vaguely Human’ approach used by Claude and Jules, the ‘Sounds Like a Startup But Is Actually a Chemical Compound’ method employed by Codex, and the ‘Literal Description But Make It Sound Techy’ technique seen in GitHub Copilot.”
Internal documents leaked to TechOnion reveal Google’s naming process included rejecting alternatives such as “CodeBuddy,” “AlgoBro,” “SyntaxPal,” and the briefly-considered but ultimately abandoned “NotBingAI.” The final selection of “Jules” reportedly came after the product manager’s Roomba, named Jules, accidentally rolled over the printout of naming candidates, which executives interpreted as divine machine intervention.
“The name ‘Jules’ tested exceptionally well among our target demographics,” said Marcus Brandmeister, Google’s VP of Making Things Sound Important. “Specifically, it appealed to developers who want their AI tools to sound like someone who would bring an expensive bottle of wine to a dinner party and then subtly remind everyone throughout the evening how much it cost.”
What “Asynchronous Coding Agent” Actually Means (A Translation for Humans)
Google’s insistence on describing Jules as an “asynchronous coding agent” rather than a “coding assistant” represents the tech industry’s ongoing effort to make simple concepts sound like they require multiple PhDs to comprehend.
“The term ‘asynchronous coding agent’ means that Jules works on code while you’re doing something else,” explained Dr. Technobabble, Google’s Director of Unnecessary Complexity. “This is distinct from other coding tools that… also work on code while you’re doing something else. But those don’t have the word ‘asynchronous’ in their marketing materials, which has been scientifically proven to increase venture capital funding by 43%.”
When asked for a practical example of Jules’ asynchronicity, Dr. Technobabble demonstrated how Jules could generate a function to calculate Fibonacci numbers while the developer was busy staring blankly at their fourth cup of Starbucks coffee, questioning their career choices, or explaining to management why adding Ai-powered to the company’s meditation app might be unnecessary.
“Jules doesn’t just write code,” insisted Dr. Technobabble. “It writes code asynchronously, which means it’s approximately 73% more disruptive and 42% more paradigm-shifting than synchronous code writing, which is what happens when a developer types with their actual human fingers like some kind of digital caveperson.”
The Honesty in “Coding Tasks You Don’t Want To Do”
Perhaps the most refreshingly candid aspect of Jules’ marketing is Google’s admission that it’s designed for “coding tasks you don’t want to do,” tacitly acknowledging that modern programming consists primarily of tedious implementation details that bring joy to precisely no one.
“Our market research revealed something shocking,” explained Dr. Honoria Truthsayer, Google’s Lead User Empathy Researcher. “It turns out that developers don’t actually enjoy writing boilerplate code, configuring build systems, or dealing with incompatible dependencies. This groundbreaking insight led us to position Jules as handling ‘the stuff that makes you want to quit technology and open a small bakery in Vermont.'”
This positioning represents a subtle but significant shift from earlier coding AIs, which claimed to be “pair programmers” or “coding companions,” implying a collaborative relationship. Jules, in contrast, is being marketed as more of a “digital intern who handles the terrible tasks you’d otherwise pawn off on the newest team member.”
“Previous coding assistants pretended they were enhancing the creative aspects of programming,” noted Dr. Truthsayer. “Jules acknowledges that 90% of modern development is just connecting various APIs together while hoping the documentation isn’t lying, and offers to handle that part while you attend another meeting that could have been an email.”
Google’s Product Strategy: More is More
Jules joins Google’s ever-expanding universe of AI products, which now includes so many overlapping tools that the company has reportedly hired full-time navigators to help employees find their way through the product lineup.
“Google’s strategy appears to be releasing new AI products at a rate that makes rabbits look reproductively conservative,” observed tech analyst Dr. Portfolio Proliferation. “At current growth rates, by 2026, Google will have more AI products than there are atoms in the observable universe, with at least six of them performing identical functions but with slightly different UI colors.”
Internal sources confirm that Jules will co-exist alongside Google’s other coding tools, including Bard, Gemini, and at least three secret projects currently bearing the code names “Hemingway,” “Fitzgerald,” and “That Guy Who Wrote ‘The Very Hungry Caterpillar.'” When asked about potential redundancy, Google representatives explained that “choice is good for consumers,” while privately admitting that even they need a spreadsheet to keep track of which AI does what.
“We’re committed to offering developers the widest possible selection of virtually identical tools with different names,” said Eliza Strategysmith, Google’s Chief Redundancy Officer and Chief Redundancy Officer. “Our vision is that by 2027, every single developer will have their own personally named AI coding assistant, custom-matched to their astrological sign and coffee preference.”
The Future of Coding: A Symphony of Differently Named AIs
Industry futurists predict that as AI coding tools proliferate, the future of software development will involve managing a team of specialized AI assistants, each with its own quirky name and marginally different capabilities.
“In five years, the average developer won’t write code—they’ll be more like an orchestra conductor,” predicts Dr. Futura Visionstein of the Institute for Technological Speculation. “You’ll have Jules handling backend logic, Claude writing your frontend components, GitHub Copilot managing testing, and another AI named something like ‘Bartholomew’ or ‘Xanthippe’ explaining to stakeholders why the project is delayed despite having an army of artificial intelligences working on it.”
This specialization is already beginning, with Google’s documentation suggesting that Jules is particularly adept at writing “code that looks impressive in demos but mysteriously breaks in production” and “comments that make it seem like you understood what you were doing when you inevitably have to debug this mess six months from now.”
The end result may be a development environment where human programmers serve primarily as mediators between competing AI personalities, each insisting its approach to implementing a simple login form is superior.
“The 10x developer of tomorrow won’t be the person who writes the best code,” suggests Dr. Visionstein. “It’ll be the person who best manages their collection of AI assistants with names that sound like they belong in a British period drama about the aristocracy.”
The End of Software Programming or Just the Beginning of More Meetings?
As tools like Jules promise to handle the coding tasks developers don’t want to do, one might reasonably ask: what’s left for human software programmers?
“Meetings,” answers Dr. Reality Check of the Center for Technological Pragmatism. “Lots and lots of meetings. Jules can write your code, but it can’t sit through a two-hour session where the product team changes all the requirements while pretending they’re just ‘clarifying the vision.'”
Google’s own research suggests that Jules will free up developers to focus on “higher-level tasks” such as “explaining to non-technical executives why adding time travel to the company app would exceed quarterly budget allocations” and “attending cross-functional synergy alignment sessions.”
In what may be the most honest admission in tech history, Google’s promotional materials for Jules include the tagline: “Let AI handle the coding so you can focus on what programming has actually been about for the last decade: arguing about JavaScript frameworks on Twitter.”
Have you tried using Jules or any other AI coding assistants? Are they actually helping you code better, or just generating more sophisticated bugs that take even longer to fix? Maybe you’re working with an entire pantheon of differently-named AI tools and need to share your organizational system? Let us know in the comments, or just have your personal AI assistant do it while you grab another coffee!
DONATE TO TECHONION: Because Our Writers Haven’t Been Replaced by AIs (Yet)
Support TechOnion's journalism by donating any amount you like—we promise not to name your contribution after a character from a Wes Anderson film or claim it's an "asynchronous monetary enhancement vector." Unlike Google, we don't have seventeen slightly different ways for you to give us money, just one simple donation option that we haven't yet described as "leveraging blockchain-optimized synchronicity for vertically integrated value transfer paradigms." Your support keeps our human writers employed at least until Jules learns to write satire, at which point we'll all pivot to opening those small bakeries in Vermont we've been dreaming about.
