Your article starts off with a grand proclamation that isn't true in most cases. Then you talk about how anyone can prompt an LLM. Most of HN already knows that engineers aren't needed to prompt an LLM. Then you state:
"By allowing non-technical people and domain experts to use English as the programming language, AI blurs the line between specification and implementation."
This is a non sequitur. You are saying that some PMs can update the prompts for an AI application. But it does not follow that AI can now specify and implement software. If you are talking about specifically "LLM Applications that just pre-prompt a model can be updated by a PM instead of an engineer". Then yes, that I would agree with. But you've extrapolated this wildly and close out with marketing for your tool.
"By allowing non-technical people and domain experts to use English as the programming language, AI blurs the line between specification and implementation."
This is a non sequitur. You are saying that some PMs can update the prompts for an AI application. But it does not follow that AI can now specify and implement software. If you are talking about specifically "LLM Applications that just pre-prompt a model can be updated by a PM instead of an engineer". Then yes, that I would agree with. But you've extrapolated this wildly and close out with marketing for your tool.