I'm confused by your comment. It seems like you didn't really provide a retort to the parent's comment about bad architecture and abstraction from LLMs.
FWIW, I think you're probably right that we need to adapt, but there was no explanation as to _why_ you believe that that's the case.
I think they are pointing out that the advantage humans have has been chipped away little by little and computers winning at coding is inevitable on some timeline. They are also suggesting that perhaps the GP is being defensive.
Why is it inevitable? Progress towards a goal in the past does not guarantee progress towards that goal in the future. There are plenty of examples of technology moving forward, and then hitting a wall.
I agree with you it isnt guaranteed to be inevitable, and also agree there have been plenty of journeys which were on a trajectory only to fall off.
That said, IMHO it is inevitable. My personal (dismal) view is that businesses see engineering as a huge cost center to be broken up and it will play out just like manufacturing -- decimated without regard to the human cost. The profit motive and cost savings are just too great to not try. It is a very specific line item so cost/savings attribution is visible and already tracked. Finally, a good % of the industry has been staffed up with under-trained workers (e.g., express bootcamp) who arent working on abstraction, etc -- they are doing basic CRUD work.
> businesses see engineering as a huge cost center to be [...] decimated without regard to the human cost
Most cost centers in the past were decimated in order to make progress: from horse-drawn carriages to cars and trucks, from mining pickaxes to mining machines, from laundry at the river to clothes washing machines, etc. Is engineering a particularly unique endeavor that needs to be saved from automation?
FWIW, I think you're probably right that we need to adapt, but there was no explanation as to _why_ you believe that that's the case.