Doesn't have to. The LLM will do it! We're done with code, aren't we?

Code is still there, but humans are done dealing with it. We're at a higher level of abstraction now. LLMs are like compilers, operating at a higher level. Nobody programs assembly language any more, much less machine language, even though the machine language is still down there in the end.

	▲	ZYbCRq22HbJ2y7 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		> Nobody programs assembly language They certainly do, and I can't really follow the analogy you are building. > We're at a higher level of abstraction now. To me, an abstraction higher than a programming language would be natural language or some DSL that approximates it. At the moment, I don't think most people using LLMs are reading paragraphs to maintain code. And LLMs aren't producing code in natural language. That isn't abstraction over language, it is an abstraction over your computer use to make the code in language. If anything, you are abstracting yourself away. Furthermore, if I am following you, you are basically saying, you have to make a call to a (free or paid) model to explain your code every time you want to alter it. I don't know how insane that sounds to most people, but to me, it sounds bat-shit.