That's great, but you and your family will go hungry as a result. If not this year, next year.
Your stance isn't new, if it's any comfort. I heard (and probably said) exactly the same thing when C compilers started getting good enough to eliminate the need for most assembly coding.
Mine, too. Now I can create a lot more software, just as I did when assemblers gave way to compilers.
The idea that this is a bad thing is just bizarre. In technology, what's anomalous isn't change, but things staying the same for 50 years, the way they have in the software business. K&R circa 1972, if transported forward in time, would instantly recognize my workflow today as being essentially the same as theirs. That's what's fucked up. It's good that something genuinely new and interesting is happening at last.
So it is your opinion that in the future llms will take extremely vague specs and turn them into fully functional software that actually works the way the prompter wanted it to?
Does the prompter sit there with the llm all day answering the 1000s of questions necessary to make what he wanted, and the prompter then spent days testing it to make sure what he initially thought he wanted is actually what he wanted?
Then for every additional feature and integration the prompter will do this again?
Are we going to make a new job title for that? Should we call that job a programmer?
Tools are tools. Better tools let us do more faster, but they are still tools.
Your stance isn't new, if it's any comfort. I heard (and probably said) exactly the same thing when C compilers started getting good enough to eliminate the need for most assembly coding.