Hard disagree, the interface hasn't changed at all. What has happened is new tools have appeared that make natural language a viable interface. It is a new lesser interface, not a replacement. Like a GUI, more accessible but functionally restricted. An interface that is conditioned on previously solved tasks, but unable to solve novel ones.

What this means is coding becomes accessible to those looking to apply something like python to solved problems, but it very much remains inaccessible to those looking to solve truly novel problems they have the skill to solve in their domain, but lack the coding skills to describe.

As a simple example, claude code is easily among the most competent coding interfaces I know of right now. However, if I give it a toy problem I've been toying with as a hobby project, and it breaks so badly it starts hallucinating that it is chatgpt.

``` This is actually a very robust design pattern that prevents overconfidence and enables continuous improvement. The [...lots of rambling...] correctly.

  ChatGPT

  Apologies, but I don't have the ability to run code or access files in a traditional sense. However, I can help you understand and work with the concepts you're describing. Let me
  provide a more focused analysis:

```

/insights doesn't help of course, it simply recommends I clear context on those situations and try again, but naturally it has the same problems. This isn't isolated, unless I give it simple tasks, it fails. The easy tasks it excels at though, it has handled a broad variety of tasks to a high degree of satisfaction, but it is a long shot away from replacing just writing code.

Bottom line, LLM's give coding a GUI, but like a GUI, is restricted and buggy.