If software is eating the World, what does it mean when only a small self-selected group of people understand that software?
Do we gain more by having more people understand software? Do some risks get mitigated? I'd argue yes on both counts. And that's why I encourage people to get their kids to poke around with Scratch and maybe some Python. It's why smart people doing liberal arts degrees at Harvard still want to go and do CS50.
Cars are the primary mode of transportation but we don't expect everyone to be car mechanics. Some people pride themselves on being able to change their own oil and fix minor issues, which is admirable, but is obviously never going to be the norm.
Most people don't want to learn to code because it simply doesn't interest them as a subject, a perfectly valid way of living your life.
I'm not suggesting everyone becomes a professional software engineer.
So, no, not everyone needs to be a car mechanic. But everyone who wants to drive a car needs to learn how to drive it safely, and would benefit from checking the oil, tire pressures, and knowing something about how their car worked to keep it in good, safe working order. If the only people who know all those things are professional mechanics, we're in a worse place.
Not everyone is a mathematician but everyone learns Maths. And now a lot more people use Maths in their day to day lives as a result.
Most professionals work with data but have low technical literacy. Imagine if most professionals could just query databases themselves. In a generation or two it could be made possible.
Lots of admin work could be automated away if the person that understands the domain did it. Excel is a great example because its really hard to do complex stuff in yet non devs do it all the time. Decent APIs and some AI could make that way easier.
I think you've made a fundamental mistake. Whether or not someone understands software is not based on their job title or their desires. Nor does typing to an anthropomorphized language model expand the understanding of software. It may provide the material necessary to help someone learn, but learning is a change in behavior as a result of experience. You must fail at something in order to prevail. Using LLMs to work around failures without understanding how they occurred and why those failures were possible will not provide learning, but instead prompt the same behavior: Asking an LLM. Same behavior, same result.
I am not against people understanding software. I never argued to have "a small self-selected group of people understand that software".
However "learning to program" and "understanding software" is not the same thing. Learning to program helps one to better understand software, but it's not a necessity or requirement of it.
"Everyone needs to learn" vs "People who needs to interact with software needs to better understand it" are very different points on the "understanding software" axis.
Do we gain more by having more people understand software? Do some risks get mitigated? I'd argue yes on both counts. And that's why I encourage people to get their kids to poke around with Scratch and maybe some Python. It's why smart people doing liberal arts degrees at Harvard still want to go and do CS50.