I don't think this is in direct contradiction with the article. This was written in response to ideas like: (a) the machine is so powerful that you can just te

I don't think this is in direct contradiction with the article. This was written in response to ideas like: (a) the machine is so powerful that you can just tell it what to do and it does it with no supervision or (b) we can ditch programming languages and just use English as the "source of truth", like you would read, modify and check in the source code rather than compiled object code. (a) is very much yet to be seen, and (b) is just monumentally stupid. Productive uses of LLMs for code are either as a super-autocomplete or as a pair programmer, which doesn't make programming languages obsolete, much less computer science education as a whole. This is even called out in TFA: '''Even if chatbots should become a useful tool for programmers, their existence cannot mean the end of programming. It may well be the case that this combination of a built-in repository of code examples and the ability to easily retrieve code examples based on it can be used for generating ideas and for forms of “pair programming” as recently studied by Bird et al.2 But this is not program synthesis, rather it gives software using LLMs the role of more modest and possibly useful tools. We are now seeing a flurry of interest in combining traditional approaches to program analysis with LLMs, and if anything, this points to the limitations inherent in both approaches.3,8'''