Ohh I'm gonna steal that one.
Although I don't fully agree. With AI the focus now shifts a lot from 'being able to implement the thing' to 'being able to know/figure out exactly what you want the thing to look like', also against the siren song of the LLMs constantly having ideas of what you could _also_ build.
So, I agree that it's not a direct translation from 'pro pizza cook' is 'pro pizza orderer', but I'm quite sure the pro pizza cooks would generally have the better pizzas in the end, if there were infinite variations of pizza on the menu and the ordering agent was constantly trying to upsell you on slathering on another layer of sauce and cheese.
Which is not to say there aren't exceptions in both directions, because as a pro pizza connoisseur you could even be better positioned to 'know exactly what you want', without ever having made a pizza; and as a pro cook you might still be overwhelmed by the ordering process.
Though all of this still assumes of course that we are in the 'complexity region' where we can expect the LLM/the pizza agent to deliver _exactly_ what we wanted, without issue. As soon as we leave that region (though it expands every week, it feels like), the skills of the cook are still very much necessary to make sure things are as they should be, and fix them if not.
there are two completely different activities both called "writing software using AI".
At work, for important stuff, I go through every change, mine or LLM's, edit it, clean it up, rewrite, until I am satisfied with the code.
At home and for one-off unimportant stuff I go "computer make me sandwich".
The second is nothing like the first. No amount of design and pro I have can make sure stuff coming out of LLM actually implements it, as opposed to me be tricked into thinking it does. After all, that is exactly the training criteria – convince the "eval" that task is accomplished, isn't it?
And the second kind of activity takes skill that no amount of "I am pro dev" can compensate.