I see your point but it's a difference in kind. The general trend in the development of higher level languages has been to allow user to encode common patterns

I see your point but it's a difference in kind. The general trend in the development of higher level languages has been to allow user to encode common patterns in ever terser sequences of symbols (e.g. no need to write your own iterator, the compiler will do it for you). However, these terse descriptions of a pattern are still deterministic and precise. This isn't quite the same as using natural languages to try and get a machine to guess at the program you want. I think it'd be a shame if we abandoned the trajectory of ever-higher programming languages in favor of relying on LLM's to generate roughly what we want in existing, "boilerplate heavy" languages. There are quite literally lines of research in programming languages right now that formally and in an incredibly terse fashion, allow you to generate provably correct software from a short, formal meta-specification. To abandon that in favor of LLM generation strategies would be a clear loss in my opinion. LLM's have their uses of course, but at the moment we're definitely in a period of major overfitting and absolute lack of reason when it comes to the application and development of these tools.