Earlier quoted context omitted.
So your claim is that anything turing-complete should forever be called "tech" and that any disagreement is arrogance? That's a difficult position to engage with constructively.
At some future date, assuming the GPT-3 adherents are right, nobody will "write code" because we will describe systems design goals to an intermediary which then writes the code. Where is the tech then? I do think there is tech and non-tech. But it gets very like pornography and the Meese commission: I know it when I see it. What I find hard, is how many people writing for the REPL or compiled languages, dismiss what…
Well, the fundamental problem with this is that you just made the programmer even more powerful. A single programmer is now as productive as a thousand programmers. You still want to have a programmer because you want someone who understands what the system is actually doing right now and keeps it running. You also need someone who understands the limitations of the software generator. You can't just say "please create software that solves the halting problem". You also need someone who understands how to optimize software. You can easily ask for something that is possible but it could cost you millions of AWS credits.
There will always be someone who has intimate knowledge of the tool he is using and can charge appropriately for it. The more powerful the tool the more attractive the employee. Compare an engineer drafting on paper vs one doing it in CAD.