> as younger programmers skip straight into prompt engineering and never develop themselves technically beyond the bare minimum needed to glue things together.
I'm not worried about that at all. Many young people are passionate, eager to learn and build things. They won't become suddenly dumb and lazy because they have this extra tool available to them. I think it's the opposite. They'll be better than their seniors because they'll have AI help them improving and learn faster.
Have you _seen_ the tragedy that is occurring in primary and secondary education right now with students using LLMs for the bulk of their coursework? Humans, and most forms of life in general, are lazy. They take the lowest energy route to a solution that works, whether that solution is food, shelter, or the answer to a homework question or problem at work. To some degree, this is good: An experienced <animal/student/engineer> has well-defined mental pathways towards getting what they need in as little time/energy as possible. I myself have dozens of things that I don't remember offhand, but that I remember a particular google query will get me to what I need (chmod args being the one that comes to mind). This leaves mental resources available for more important or difficult-to-acquire knowledge, like the subtle nuances of a complex system or cat pictures.
The problem is a lack of balance, and in some instances skipping the entirety of Critical Reasoning. Why go through the effort of working your way through a problem when you would rather be doing <literally anything else> with your time. Iterate on this to the extreme, with what feels like a magic bullet that can solve anything, and your skills *will* atrophy.
Of course there are exceptions to this trend. Star pupils exist in any generation who will go out of their way to discover answers to questions they have, re-derive understanding of things just for the sake of it, and apply their passions towards solving problems they decide are worth solving. The issue is the _average_ person, given an _average_ (e.g. if in America, under-funded) education, with an _average_ mentor, will likely choose the path of least resistance.
I'm not worried about that at all. Many young people are passionate, eager to learn and build things. They won't become suddenly dumb and lazy because they have this extra tool available to them. I think it's the opposite. They'll be better than their seniors because they'll have AI help them improving and learn faster.