> There's a good chance that eventually reading code will become like inspecting assembly.

We don’t read assembly because we read the higher level code, which deterministically is compiled to lower level code.

The equivalent situation for LLMs would be if we were reviewing the prompts only, and if we had 100% confidence that the prompt resulted in code that does exactly what the prompt asks.

Otherwise we need to inspect the generated code. So the situation isn’t the same, at least not with current LLMs and current LLM workflows.

>> We don’t read assembly because we read the higher level code, which deterministically is compiled to lower level code.

I think the reason "we" don't read, or write, assembly is that it takes a lot of effort and a detailed understanding of computer architecture that are simply not found in the majority of programmers, e.g. those used to working with javascript frameworks on web apps etc.

There are of course many "we" who work with assembly every day: as a for instance, people working with embedded systems, or games programmers as another.