> You could also show them another solution (maybe one with a bug?) and ask them to explain it and compare with their solution. IMO guided reviews seem like a

> You could also show them another solution (maybe one with a bug?) and ask them to explain it and compare with their solution. IMO guided reviews seem like a great option in general. You have complete control over what goes into the code to review and it wouldn't even have to be code in the first place. Could also be documentation, processes or architectures. And that skill remains valueable even when LLMs become the most effective way to write code at some point. But to be honest, I don't think LLMs will ever replace "coders". Language theory has always been an important part of CS degrees, and that's because in programming you need an efficient and precise way to express what exactly you want the computer to do. In that way I don't see why whatever we end up feeding into LLMs shouldn't be considered "code". I guess that in the end we'll get smaller LLMs put into compilers to enable better optimizations.