[unknownfuture]

No, coding is the act of reifying all the things that actually matter--the requirements, the visual design, the system design, etc--into a form that a computer can execute.

The biggest value proposition of an LLM is being able to focus on the truly high-value activities while allowing the machine take care of much of that reification.

That you think architecture or interior design isn't building tells you prefer to downplay or devalue any work that isn't hands on construction. It's an interesting perspective, but it's one I'll never be able to understand or agree with.

[ori_b]

If you give up on the details, you lose the ability to do a good job on the high level structure. The entire purpose of the high level structure is setting things up so that the details fit cleanly.

[unknownfuture]

For junior developers, I absolutely agree that's a major risk, and it's something I'm deeply worried about as these tools take over the industry, as understanding those details helps inform why a given architecture is needed.

For someone who's been around the block a few times, there's little new under the sun. Coming up with good architecture for a problem space and having the LLM fill in the details is incredibly effective as a pattern.

That said, tbh I'm not sure why we keep exchanging messages. Your other comment about coding with AI assistance as being akin to buying a statue tells me you have either never coded with an agent, and so think it's a simple matter of saying "build me a to-do app" and then calling it a day, or you're experienced with these tools and deliberately misrepresenting the process.

If it's the former, then we don't share enough understanding to have a healthy conversation, and if it's the latter then there's little point in arguing with someone who insists in doing so in bad faith.