*: I'm aware of cases like the recent ffmpg assembly usage that gave a big performance boost. When talking about industrial trend lines, I'm OK with admitting 0.001% exceptions.
(Apologies if it comes across as snarky or pat, but I honestly think the comparison is reasonable.)
Are you aware compilers are deterministic most of the time?
If a compiler had a 10% chance of erasing your code instead of generating an executable you'd see more people still using assembly.
The basic nature of my job is to maintain the tallest tower of complexity I can without it falling over, so I need to take complexity and find ways to confine it to places where I have some way of knowing that it can't hurt me. LLMs just don't do that. A leaky abstraction is just a layer of indirection, while a true abstraction (like a properly implemented high-level language) is among the most valuable things in CS. Programming is theory-building!
But... what else? These things are rare. It’s not like there’s a new thing that comes along every few years and we all have to jump on or be left behind, and LLMs are the latest. There’s definitely a new thing that comes along every few years and people say we have to jump on or be left behind, but it almost never bears out. Many of those ended up being useful, but not essential.
I see no indication that LLMs or associated tooling are going to be like compilers and version control where you pretty much can’t find anyone making a living in the field without them. I can see them being like IDEs or debuggers or linters where they can be handy but plenty of people do fine without them.
Where would you put the peak? Fortran was invented in the 50’s. The total population of programmers was tiny back then…