A big enough quantitative change is a qualitative change. There is a big difference between a bad programmer who banged on that code for three days before finally getting it to do what they wanted it to do, and never went back to try to minimize it and clean it up, and that same programmer pushing a prompt into X-GPT and getting that code in five minutes, then moving on to do it again and again and again dozens of times faster than before.
Like everyone else here of any experience I too have waded through gooey code that was impossible to discern any purpose or design in, because there really wasn't any, after everyone was done hacking on it. But the hacking was still bounded by human speeds.
Our only two options for a code base produced that way would be 1. discard it and start over or 2. hope that the next-generation AIs that aren't just LLMs are able to clean it up, since "automatically cleaning up LLM-generated code bases" is going to be a rather lucrative field. LLMs, no matter how much you hypetrophy them, aren't suitable for coding at scale, and they can't be. Their architecture is just wrong. But that's a claim I only make about LLMs, not AI in general.
What is typing. Lets say you have no hands, no eyes, and cannot speak or to speed this up- All you can do is communicate with foot taps (in great detail) to a human translator. Would we tell this person they are not programming?
Programming. All Im trying to illustrate is that, it's not the typing that makes the sausage, it's the ideas. Who cares how the code gets created, if the people involved care, they can provide input and assistance to make the final outcome exactly what they want.
Typing, in the broad sense, refers to the action of inputting information into a device, whether it's done via a keyboard, voice, or any other method. When you describe a scenario in which a person can only communicate through foot taps to a human translator, this still qualifies as a form of inputting information. The method of communication might be unconventional and require translation into a form understandable by a computer, but it remains a way of interacting with a device or system.
In the context of programming, what fundamentally matters is the ability to formulate logical instructions that a computer can execute. If a person can convey these instructions through foot taps, and these are then translated accurately into a programming language by a human or machine, this person is indeed programming.
Programming is defined by the cognitive process of solving problems and giving instructions, not necessarily by the physical act of typing these instructions in a conventional manner. Therefore, we would not tell this person that they are not programming; rather, they are programming using an alternative method of communication. This highlights the inclusive and adaptable nature of technology and programming, which can accommodate various methods of interaction to include individuals with different abilities.