If you design a custom piece of furniture, then hire someone to build it, that's totally fine! But if you then tell everyone "I constructed this cool table," well, that's just not true.
This is the difference between "made in China" and "designed in California, assembled in China". People will generally not say "I constructed this table" just as an architect won't say "I built this house", unless you have the context that they're an architect or they're trying to mislead you.
There will come a time where by default we interpret "I built this software" not to mean that you literally wrote the code, unless you say that explicitly, just as when somebody says "I built this computer" we know it means they picked the parts, rather than soldered the boards, which is what it meant in Woz' day.
Anything can be anything it isn't once you start changing the language.
"When at first you don't succeed, redefine success."
> Having software build software is programming. An agent is software, a human isn't. I can draw a UML diagram, software generates code from that, and software turns it into binary.
It's not programming, it's cuckoldry. Articulating the perfect guy, inviting him over and watching him get to do all the stuff you used to enjoy literally makes you a manager.
Karpathy said it best. To paraphrase: there will be a rift of hate/love between programmers and builders respectively. You simply enjoy the craft a lot more that you enjoy the result of your craft.
There's nothing wrong with that, just as you can enjoy the effort and craftsmanship of hand-knitting a sweater. But some of us are more fulfilled by making nice clothes, and the labour (or delegation thereof) is a means to an end.
Another difference is the binary code - I can run the same agent on a different computing substrate (e.g. different CPU), but with humans no one can do that. That has implications, we can study or modify AI agent behavior, for instance.