I don't think this comparison holds up. With a higher-level language, the material you're building with is a formal description of the software, which can be fed back into a compiler to get a deterministic outcome.
With an LLM, you put in a high-level description, and then check in the "machine code" (generated code).
"Most developers don't know the assembly code of what they're creating. When you skip assembly you trade the very thing you could have learned to fully understand the application you were trying to make. The end result is a sad simulacrum of the memory efficiency you could have had."
This level of purity-testing is shallow and boring.