I don't buy a nihilistic "does anything mean anything anymore?" approach. I'm basing my evaluation on Copilot. It functions as a highly context-sensitive and v

I don't buy a nihilistic "does anything mean anything anymore?" approach. I'm basing my evaluation on Copilot. It functions as a highly context-sensitive and very useful autocomplete, so the "autocomplete" label is a complete, accurate, and precise description for it. It does not fill the same role as writing repeatable macros, batch scripts in part of the build process, token manipulation, or joining a tabular dataset with templates...all components associated with traditional code generation. In the most strict pedantic sense, yes, LLMs create lines code via their internal processes, and that could be called "code generation" at a technical level. But they serve different needs, with different techniques, and different interfaces. In terms of common parlance, no PM or manager who is not pants-on-head dumb is going to suggest replacing scripts that generate code 1:1 with LLM output, unless the terminology itself has confused them into thinking they fill the same role. Poor communicators, whether because they are overly pedantic or undertrained, may make this mistake. But in a team environment, if "codegen" is considered a valid name for LLM output, an effective communicator is always going to need to clarify which they mean, because the tasks are not interchangeable in the least.