At its heart stuff like this is no different than the jumps from punchcards you asm to c to python. You still need someone to solidify ideas into processes. The change is that the building blocks themselves become more complex.

For whatever automation a new tool gives you, you get new maintenance on that tool, other languages will want a tool that gives those features, systems running older versions will want upgrades in order to support the tool, 20% time will be spent on getting it running immaculately on Emacs, security researchers will find bugs in the tool so everyone has to fix, patch and upgrade, web sites for showing off the tool need designing and hosting, support forums have to be staffed, blogs have to be written, some novel use of the tool requires integration with various other systems, enterprise asks for a powerbi version that can integrate with oracle (it ends up being 5x slower, but does lead to more jobs in maintenance and meetings), more research is produced etc. etc.

Wingman just automates sifting through what the Haskell types enforce - they restrict possibilities so much there aren't that many valid programs most of the time. There's plenty of Haskell programmers all the while tho ;)

I was worried about this for several years.

I then had the realization that if someone manages to genuinely automate programming, humans will wind up still being in the loop to confirm that the generated code is reasonable under the hood, and to be sure we have people who understand what it's doing and why.

If I'm right about that, code review chops will be worthwhile in the long haul.