I for one am actually pretty glad to see the role commoditized. Software's one of few roles where you need the deep theory component (a CS degree) to practice (land a respectable gig). My impression is that this is because we, the software industry, have done a poor job separating the theory from practice.

Much as you hire an electrician, as opposed to an electrical engineer, to wire your house, or a carpenter, rather than a mechanical / structural engineer, to build your house, I do think we should be finding ways to separate "programmer" from "computer scientist". These are both completely legitimate roles, and deserve to be paid according to their value produced - they're both quite high! But the fact that I need a deep understanding of data structures, operating systems, computer architecture, or other college-level concepts to write software feels like a shortcoming. If CS researchers can set standards for software, rather than _write the software itself_, we can more easily create on ramps and shallow ends for people to use.

Low code tools and LLMs are great steps in this regard, but I feel that they're still stigmatized from the enablement perspective.