Earlier quoted context omitted.
If anything LLMs should use something higher level because it compresses the context and makes programming closer to natural language they are trained on. Forcing LLMs to do a shitty job of what a compiler can do deterministically is not a good approach IMO.
Low level was the wrong term for me to pick there. I was meaning more along the lines of "purpose built". I.e. I could see a language, potentially still an abstraction requiring a compiler, that isn't meant to be particularly meaningful or inspectable by humans. For LLMs your right, conciseness would be important and that would likely mean it would be compiled.
I think if changes will happen in this direction it will be around formal verification, it's more difficult to trust LLM generated code if you aren't completely brainroted on press releases, and traditionally formal verification was seen as more effort than it's worth, but a tool that's great that generating insane amounts of text is quite well suited to formally verifying code, and assuming you can figure out how to make the specification readable to people, you just don't (in theory) need to ever look at the code or the proof, even if it might be helpful to anyways in practice. I'm quite excited the future of software might be fully unhackable software being the standard, with hacking becoming something that's talked about as a brief criminal fad in the beginning of the 21st century, like how you might hear about coin clipping from before fiat currency.