>This has only ever been true in a relative sense. Until recently, one was expected to understand the software-level code they wrote. But not the machine code, or the computer internals at a deep level.

Just because something wasn't required at all levels or 100% it doesn't mean it wasn't required or it wasn't important though.

I trusted that the machine code worked because it was a mostly mechanical transformation, with little to zero non-determinism involved, and the design decisions for the high level code were still mine and understood. Not the same with an LLM, even when see just as an added level of abstraction.

Given some LLM produced code, I also trust the compiler will produce working machine code matching it. Doesn't mean I trust the LLM code in the same way.