>> Not to mention the skill of being able to "check work" usually flows from deep experience of "doing work."
> Precisely, but you need far fewer of these people, which is why this is being so heavily pushed.
That sounds like extremely specious reasoning to me, probably due to working backward from technology to application in order to hype the former.
Firstly, is it's anyone experience that it's easier to understand an unreliable system that was barfed out of some unreliable process (doesn't have to be an LLM, could be a bad offshore team), than it is to try to build it right from the start? It's still garbage out. It's like abusing the QA process by saying quality is only their job, then carelessly pumping out crap work and expecting them to catch all the mistakes.
Secondly, where are these "fewer" skilled people supposed to come from? The technology, if embraced this way, will have the effect of cutting off the the skils pipeline. That would work in the short/medium term, but in a generation when you start to see lots of retirements, you'll hit a skills dead end.
