Learning to code (I don't require it to be machine code) involves mastering a level of abstract thinking that is sufficient to make the computer do what you want. It's more than pushing A to make Mario jump, it's more than learning how to put a SUM() on an excel column, and it's more than typing "make a program that does this" into ChatGPT. I don't know exactly where the line is, but it's going to involve some level of the kind of suffering and brain lock that higher level thought involves.

I'm not a purist on a mountaintop saying tools can't be used effectively during coding. Everyone googles for API parameters, you can just ask ChatGPT how to fix syntax in an unfamiliar language, and you can copy anything you have access to and paste it in, that's all okay. It just isn't what makes you a coder any more than wearing a uniform makes you a cop.

That makes sense and I think everyone should learn to code regardless if a machine can automate it because it makes the person better at thinking - which is what really differentiates us from other animals.

But I think people object to you saying LLMs are not coding. Using them certainly does not help the person using them think the same way making all the decisions while writing the code. But even if LLMs are a Chinese room, if they could produce the same output as a human (given the same goal and information context), they IMO would be coding.