Seriously, I think this is way off-base; the job of a software engineer (not a "programmer") is to distill problems that are both technical (bits) AND psychological (Bobs and Barbaras) into a reasonable, reproducible solution that can be subsequently improved upon and maintained. Most days, it's the latter that's the real work.

ChatGPT is, on one level, a fancy form of Google search: you still need to know how to leverage the prompts in order to make decent progress, and it's based on knowledge (correct OR incorrect) that was originally generated by a human, one of whom must still evaluate as to whether or not the outputs are relevant to the task at hand.

There's a whole branch of philosophy dedicated to this, by the way, that deals with the knowledge lifecycle: how concepts come to be, how they are reinforced socially, and then discarded when no longer relevant. The same lifecycle applies to the data pools used for training "old" models.