My problem with the approaches to understanding other than reading the actual code is LLMs hallucinate what code actually does based on what the intent of the code is

> That's where another answer comes in: we can understand to participate. > You can learn what the agent is doing to make sure you can be an active participant in the creative process. Here's why this matters…

Well, this isn't really a requirement to participate. It wasn't even a thing until AI. The real reason here is that AI is just not actual intelligence.

If AI could simply be trusted like an actual intelligent agent, none of this would be necessary. If it said something like "Ok, I did XYZ, but it is not a good idea to do this in this way, so I did it this other way that is better". Instead it just follows instructions into oblivion.

I highlight this because either AI keeps getting better and all of this is irrelevant, we will not need to understand, just like managers used to not understand (relatively speaking) the tasks they gave software engineers, OR AI stays in this robotic/tool mode in which case I suspect it will drastically change the way it is being adopted. If this is as good as it gets in terms of agency (as oppose to knowledge, which it is already god-like), then it will still create an impact (already has) but it won't restructure the entire industry.