It's the domains, the problems being solved, that are interesting, not the lines of code. I want to have expertise in the former, not the latter.

The code is ultimately the codification (ha!) of domain knowledge in precise, non-ambiguous ways. It has extrinsic, non essential complexity yes.

But including ever more complexity in the process, by depending on complexity-slinger systems that you don't fully control or even understand, is not the solution, in my view.

If you lose control over the precise, detailed specification of the domain knowledge that the code is, ultimately you are just a glorified business analyst. Besides, the inherent complexity of the implementation is not without essential complexity that needs mastering for security and performance reasons. Deferring that mastery to some tool is self defeating. The complexity doesn't disappear. You're just shuffling it around and when it leaves your purview you are merely creating opportunity for someone else to capture that value.

Ultimately yeah the vision of being an LLM jockey who doesn't know code might be viable or even numerically dominant in the market in future. Why would you descend the value chain though, and voluntarily, that I don't understand. Competing for volume isn't historically in the interest of the autonomous worker. Maybe I'd feel differently about it if I owned capital and had some corporate strategy behind it. As an independent actor, I don't see it favoring me.