This is just part of our capabilities now. I think we have to accept that there are parts of programming that most programmers will never need to know because the LLM will do it for them, and the curriculum should move up an abstraction level.
Two comments:
First, it's not often noted in these conversations that there are two types of LLM-using programmers/learners. One kind uses it to radically accelerate the learning process, the other kind uses it so they don't have to learn. Actually, make that three kinds—the third (probably a subset of the second) has extremely low creativity and can't understand how to use LLM tools effectively, and so can't guide their output effectively, or wrangle it after the fact.
I suspect your comment is referring to PRs by the latter kind. This is not a problem with LLMs, or with people using them to enhance productivity.
Second, what is your realistic proposal for how to confront the reality that we're accelerating through irreversible technology-assisted change?
Just like, apart from catastrophes, there's no longer a concern that we won't have massive factory farms, or that we won't have access to calculators, or that programmers won't have access to Google, there's no future where programmers wont have increasingly helpful and capable AI tools.
There will always be low IQ, low performance individuals. Can you recognize that the problem—as always—is those people, not the technology?
I don’t agree with the OPs statement:
> I think we have to accept that there are parts of programming that most programmers will never need to know because the LLM will do it for them
I don’t think people lacking fundamentals use LLMs very effectively.
Anyone other than me get the vibe of Isaac Asimov's classic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Feeling_of_Power from such posts?
if you've ever endured the pain of PR'ing a medium-ish sized feature from someone who copiloted their way through the entire thing you know it doesn't work that way